X 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/adversereportofsOOarizrich 


A  DVBRSE  REPORT 


)  1-'   T  I   (I- 


SURVEYOR  GENERAL 


<  )l    ARIZONA.  I 

i; 
tl 

lioY<  tl  ^^  Jolmsoii  t 

•'  ♦ 

t 

Alleged ''Peralta  Granf  i! 


)M:p»LEa:E: 


!  Ex})08e  of  Its  Fraudulent  Character,  j 


1 1 

It  •  o 

I*  1890. 


♦  •  ♦  -»--♦-' 


.J 


ADVERSE   REPORT  OF 

THE   SURVEYOR    GENERAL, 

OF  ARIZONA, 

ROYAL  A.JOHNSON, 

UPON   THE  ALLEGED 

PERALTA  GRANT. 


A  Complete  Expose  of  ItsJFraudulent  Character. 


1890. 


Tlje  Surveyor  Seneral's  Report, 


Under  the  power  vested  in  me  as  Siirveyer  General  of 
Arizona  by  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  July  15,  1870  en- 
titled "An  Act  Making  Appropriations  for  Sundry  Civil 
Expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  Year  ending  June  SOth^ 
1871,and  for  Other  Purposes,"  wherein  it  was  provided,  "That 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Surveyor  General  of  Arizona,  under 
such  instructions  as  may  be  given  by  the  Secretary  of  the  In 
terior,  to  ascertain  and  report  upon  the  origin,  nature,  characs 
ter  and  extent  of  the  claims  to  lands  in  said  Territory,  under 
the  laws,  usuages  and  customs  of  Spain  and  Mexico,  and  for 
this  purpose  he  shall  have  all  the  power  conferred  and  shall 
perform  all  the  duties  enjoined  upon  the  Surveyor  General  of 
New  Mexico  by  the  eighth  section  of  an  act  entititled  "An 
Act  to  Establish  the  Offices  of  Surveyor  General  of  New- 
Mexico,  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  to  Grant  Donations  to  Actual 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 


Settlers,  and  for  Other  Purposes,"  approved  Jul/  22nd,  1854, 
and  his  report  shall  be  laid  before  Congress  for  such  action 
thereon  as  shall  be  deemed  just  and  proper." 

The  act  creating  the  office  of  Surveyor  General,  referred 
to,  provides  that  the  Surveyor  General  in  pursuit  of  the  invess 
ligation  of  claims,  or  alleged  grants  "may  issue  notices,  sum- 
mon witnesses,  administer  oaths,  and  do  other  necessary  acts 
in  the  premises." 

1  herewith  submit  my  report  on  a  claim  made  to  an 
alleged  land  grant  of  enormous  proportions,  located  by  claim- 
ants within  the  Territory  of  Arizona,  and  commonly  known  and 
designated  as  the  "Peralta  Grant." 

In  proceeding  to  report  on  this  grant  that,  Cr)ngress  may 
realize  the  importance  of  this  claim,  I  will  state  that  the  so- 
called  "Peralta  Grant"  is  claimed  to  cover  an  area  of  land 
approximating  fifty  miles  wide  by  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles 
long,  and  includes  everything  valuable  within  its  extensive 
boundaries,  particularly  claiming  the  minerals.  As  claimed 
the  Peralta  grant  con  ersa  very  large  proportion  of  the  counties 
of  Maricopa,  Pinal,  Graham,  Gila  and  Apache  and  takes 
in  more  than  half  of  the  White  Mountain  or  San  Carlos 
Indian  reservation  and  the  major  portion  of  the  Pima  and 
Maricopa  Indian  reservation.  The  latter  Indians  are  pre- 
eminently the  agricultural  Indians  of  the  Territory,  and  have 
fertile  farms  on  their  reservations.  It  is  also  claimed  that  the 
city  of  Phoenix,  one  of  the  largest  and  most  prosperous  cities  of 
Arizona,  together  with  Florence,  Tempe,  Globe,  Silver  King, 
Pinal,  Casa  Grande,  Solomonville  and  other  towufe  of  great 
future  promise  are  located  within  the  confines.  In  fact  this 
grant  in  its  vast  entirety  covers  a  section  of  country  populous 
and  fall  of  promise.  In  addition  mines  of  great  wealth,  many 
of  which  I'.re  constant  bullion  producers,  are  located  on  the 
claimed  grant. 

Since  the  purchase  of  this  Territory  from  Mexico,  the 
United  Stales  Gover.iment  has  been  issuing  its   patents,  and 


giving  its  titles  to  residents  on  the  alleged  grant,  and  this  has 
been  particularly  the  case  in  the  fertile  valleys  of  the  Gila 
and  Salt  rivers,  towards  which  locality  the  tide  of  immi- 
gration has  naturally  diifted  and  today  the  people  on  the 
alleged  grant  are  resting  secure  in  the  possession  of  govern- 
ment titles  to  their  homes,  and    other  property. 

As  long  as  this  land  grant  title  hovers  over  the  section 
of  country  claimed,  without  action,  there  must  necessarily  be 
retarded  prosperity  in  that  locality  and  it  becomes  the  duty 
of  those  having  cognizance  of  cases  of  this  nature  to  act  as 
expeditiously  as  possible. 

In  my  report  I  shall  maintain:  First,  That  the  King 
never  recommended  the  grant  as  alleged  by  claimants.  Second, 
That  no  such  grant  as  the  alleged  Peralta  Grant  was  ever 
made  by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain.  Third,  That  admitting 
the  legality  of  the  alleged  grant  there  are  no  legal  claimants 
before  this  office,  and  none  in  existence  so  far  as  the  records 
show.  Fourth,  That  again  admitting  its  legality,  it  is  abso- 
lutely impossible  to  establish  its  boundaries,  the  alleged  grant 
never  having  been  bounded  or  surveyed,  and  without  identi- 
fied boundaries  it  fails. 

The  papers  filed  in  this  case  by  the  s'everal  claimants  are 
as  follows:  I  will  give  the  original  petition  of  James  Addison 
Reavis  in  full  as  it  is  an  important  factor  in  the  consideration 
of  the  alleged  grant.     It  was  filed  March  27th,  1883. 

"To  THE  Hon.  J.  W.  Robbins. 

United  States  Surveyor  General  for  Arizona: 

The  petition  of  James  Addison  Reavis  respectfully  sets 
forth:  That  he  is  owner,  by  purchase  from  the  legal  heirs 
and  representatives  of  the  original  grantee  of  a  certain  tract 
of  land,  situated  in  the  Territory  of  Arizona,  containing  three 
hundred  square  leagues  (Castilian  or  Spanish  measurement) 
granted  on  the  third  day  of  January,  1758,  by  the  Viceroy  of 
New  Spain  to  Don  Miguel  Peralta,  Baron  of  the  Coloradoes 
under  royal  decree  of  the  King  of  Spain,  directing  such  grant 
to  be  made  to  the  said  Peralta  in  consideration  of  and  as   a 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 


reward  for  distingiiisned  military  services  rendered  to  the 
Crown  in  the  war  of  Spain,  as  set  forth  in  the  following 
muniments  of  title: 

First.  "Royal  decree  signed  at  Madrid  on  the  20th  of 
December  1748,  directing  grant  to  be  made  to  Miguel  de 
Peralta,  Baron  of  the  Coloradoes,  of  three  hundred  square 
leagues  of  land,  or  19,200,000,000  square  varas,  Castiiian  or 
Spanish  measurement,  to  be  located  on  the  royal  lands  in  the 
northern  portion  of  the  Vice  Royalty  of  New  Spain. 

Second.  '^Report  of  the  Royal  Inquisition  in  the  city 
and  arch  bishopric  of  Mexico,  dated  October  1757,  setting 
out  that  they  make  no  opposition  to  the  location  as  selected 
by  Peralta.  That  as  the  concession  will  be  attended  with  bene- 
ficial results,  they  have  determined  to  recommend  that  the 
location  be  made  so  as  to  include  the  Gila  river,  to  the  north 
of  the  Mission  of  San  Javier,  the  tract  granted  extending  ten 
leagues  from  north  to  south  and  thirty  leagues  from  east  to 
west. 

Third.  Grant  made  by  the  Viceroy  on  the  3rd  of  Janus 
ary  1758,  in  accordance  with  royal  decree,  and  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  Royal  Holy  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisition, 
giving  to  Peralta  300  square  leagues,  to  be  located  according 
to  the  reconmiendation  of  the  Royal  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, granting  with  the  land  all  the  minerals,  waters  and 
streams,   together   \vith.all    things  thereto  pertaining. 

Fourth.  Statement  of  Peralta,  dated  13th  of  May  1758, 
showing  by  metes  and  bounds  the  location  of  the  land  granted 

Fifth.  Petiti«)n  of  Peralta  to  Corlos  III,  King  of  Spain, 
dated  August  1st  1768,  asking  conhrmation  of  a  concession 
made  to  him  (Peralta)  by  Ferdinand  VI.  and  the  location 
thereof  by  order  of  the  Viceroy  in  1758. 

Sixth.  Order  of  the  King  dated  Madrid,  January  20th, 
1776,  granting  petition  of  Peralta. 

All  ot  which  is  fully  and  clearly  set  forth  in  original 
documents  hereto  annexed,  marked  "Exhibil  A,"  with  trans- 
lation of  same,  which  original  documents  are  from  the  govern- 


SURVEYOR     GENERAL  S    REPORT. 


mentarchives  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  and  are  made  part  of  this 
petition. 

Petitioner  further  represents  that  besides  the  original  title 
papers  procured  from  the  government  archives  of  the  City  of 
Mexico,  a  record  of  said  grant  is  found  in  the  p/oper  office  in 
the  city  of  Guadalajara  in  Mexico,  which  city  was  at  the  date 
of  the  grant  the  pUice  at  which,  under  the  then  existing  laws, 
grants  of  this  character  were  required  to  be  recorded,  a  trans- 
cript of  which  records,  duly  attested  by  the  proper  officers  of 
the  state  of  Jalisco,  and  officers  of  the  Cabinet  of  the  United 
States  of  Mexico  and  Secretary  of  Legation  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  "Exhibit  B," 
with  translation  thereof,  and  made  a  part  of  this  petition. 

And  your  petitioner  further  states  that  a  record  of  said 
grant,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  last  will  and  testament  of 
the  said  Peralta,  Baron  of  the  Colorados,  was  made  in  the 
year  1788,  in  the  ancient  mission  San  Francisco  Javier  del 
Bac,  giving  to  the  legatee,  Miguel  Peralta,  absolute  possession 
and  control  of  said  grant,  photographic  copies  of  which,  duly 
attested,  are  hereunto  annexed,  and  marked  "Exhibit  C.  1-2-3 
which,  with  translations  of  the  same,  are  made  part  hereof. 

Petitioner  alleges  that  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  above 
described  grant,  Miguel  de  Peralta,  Baron  of  the  Colorados, 
became,  in  the  year  1758,  the  owner  in  absolute  property  of 
the  tract  of  land  as  described  in  the  title  papers  above  referred 
to,  with  all  things  thereunto  pertaining,  under  the  highest 
title  that  could  be  given  to  the  royal  domain  in  any  part  of 
the  Spanish  dominions,  in  the  year  1758,  towit:  A  grant  by 
the  King  with  title  to  nobility  for  distinguished  military  ser- 
vices to  the  crown,  and  that  ijjrants  of  such  extent,  or  even 
greater,  were,  during  the  times  of  the  Spanish  rule  in  AuDcrica, 
under  similiar  circumstances,  often  made  is  historically 
notorious. 

Petitioner  further  alleges,  that  it  being  shown  by  the  origs 
inal  title  papers   that   in   the   year  1758,    an    absolute    title 


SURVEYOR  GENERAL  S    REPORT. 


becoming  vested  in  Miguel  de  Peralta  de  la  Cordoba,  Baron  of 
the  Colorados,  to  the  tract  of  land  as  hereinbefore  described 
the  right  so  possessed  by  him  under  the  law  was  bequeathed 
to  Miguel  Peralta,  his  legal  heir  and  representative.  And 
petitioner  represents  that  the  present  ownership  of  the  tract 
of  land  granted  in  1758  to  Miguel  de  Peralta  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  following  chain  of  title. 

First.  Will  of  grantee  dated  in  Guadalajara,  January 
13th,  1788  as  set  out  in  Exhibit  B  and  C  1-2-3,  hereinbefore 
referred  to  by  which  will  Miguel  de  Peralta,  Baron  of  the 
Colorados,  left  to  his  son  Miguel  Peralta,  the  tract  of  land 
described  in  said  grant. 

Second.  Deed  from  Miguel  Peralta  to  George  M.  Willing, 
dated  October  20th,  1864. 

Third.  Power  of  attorney  from  George  M.  Willing  to  F. 
A.  Massol,  dated  May  11th.  1864. 

Fourth.  Deed  from  Massol,  attorney  in  fact  of  George 
M.  Willing,  to  J.  A.  Reavis,  dated  May  22nd  1867. 

Fifth.  Deed  from  Florin  A.  Massol  and  wife  to  James 
Addison  Reavis,  dated  July  29th,  1881. 

Sixth.  Deed  from  Mary  Ann  Willing,  widow  of  George 
M.  Willing,  deceased,  to  James  Addison  Reavis,  dated  May 
1st,  1882. 

Petitioner  alleges  and  claims  that  under  and  by  virtue 
of  the  original  title  papers  and  the  several  powers  of  attorney 
and  conveyances  hereinbefore  described,  he  is  now  the  owner 
in  the  property  or  tract  of  land  as  granted,  in  the  year  1758 
by  the  Spanish  government  to  Migu«^l  de  Peralta,  Baron  of 
the  Colorados,  as  the  same  is  <lescribed  in  the  original  title 
1  apers;  and  he  therefore  prays  the  Hon.  Surveyor  General  of 
the  United  States  of  America  that  after  the  necessary  examin- 
ation he  recommend  a  confirmation  thereof  to  petitioner,  and 
the  issue  of  a  patent  to  him  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  for  the  tract  of  land  as  described  in  the 
original  title  papers,  in  Castilian  or    Spanish    measurement 


which  equals  49f  English  miles  in  width  uorth  and  south  by 
149 J  English  miles  in  length  east  and  west,  be  the  same  more 
or  lesjs. 

James  Addison  Reavis, 
Tucson,  A.  T.,  March  27th,  1883. 

The  other  papers  filed  in  addition  to  the  petition  of  Reavis 
consist  of: 

The  papers  bound  together  in  pamphlet  form,  with  cot- 
ton cloth  back  and  distinctly  claimed  by  petitioner  Reavis  in 
his  petition,  dated  March  27th,  1883,  as  "Original  Title 
Papers".  (This  claim  as  to  these  papers  being  original  title 
papers  Reavis  abandons  in  his  late  deraignment  of  title  in  his 
wife.)     These  bound  papers  consist  of: 

The  royal  decree  (cedula)  ordering  grant. 

The  report  of  the  Royal  Inquisition. 

The  alleged  grant  by  the  Viceroy, 

A  statement  in  writing  by  Peralta  showing  the  approxi- 
mate location  of  the  land. 

A  petition  by  Peralta  to  Carlos  III.  of  Spain  asking  con- 
firmation of  grant. 

An  order  of  the  King  dated  January  20th,  1776,  at 
Madrid,  Spain. 

A  letter  from  Santa  Ana,  President  of  the  Mexican 
Republic,  to  Senor  Don  Miguel  de  Peralta,  son  of  original 
grantee. 

Three  photographs  of  books  of  records  of  San  Xavier 
church. 

A  copy  of  will  of  grantee  dated  in  Guadalajara,  January 
13th,  1788,  filed  March  27th,  1883. 

A  deed  from  Miguel  Peralta  to  George  M.  Willing  dated 
October  20th,  1864. 

A  power  of  attorney  from  George  M.  Willing  to  F.  A. 
Massol,  dated  May  11th,  1864. 

A  deed  from  Massol,  attorney  in  fact  of  George* M.  Wil- 


8  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 


ing   to  J.  x\.  Reiivis,   dated  May  22iid,  1867.     (See   Massol 
affidavits  that  deed  is  a  forgery.) 

A  deed  from  Florin  A.  Massol  and  wife  to  James  Addis 
son  Reavis,  dated  July  29tli,  1881.  (Of  no  import  if  valid 
as  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  Massol  ever  had  any  right  to 
the  Peralta  grant,  even  if  found  to  he  genuine.) 

A  deed  from  Mary  Ann  Willing,  widow  of  George  M. 
Willing,  deceased,  to  James  Addison  Reavis,  dated  May  1st, 
1882. 

A  sketch  ofahe  alleged  grant  and  accompanying  petition 
for  survey. 

Photographs  of  Maricopa  mountains  and  "Monumental 
Rock",    so  named  by  Reavis)  filed  September  2nd,  1887. 

Amended  deraignment  of  title,  filed  September  2nd,  1887 

Marriage  contract  and  identity  of  heir  at  law,  filed  Sep- 
tember 2nd, 1887. 

Photographic  copy  of  testimonia.  * 

A  bound  book  marked  on  outside  cover  as  follows: 

"Exhibits  'AAA'  and  'BBB'  Royal  Patent,  also  Wills, 
Codicils  and  Certified  Copy  of  Possession  Given  to  Don  Miguel 
de  Peralta  de  la  Cordoba,  Baron  of  the  Colorados,  of  Baronial 
Estate  in  Arizona,"  said  to  contain  papers  indicated  by  the 
markings  on  the  cover. 

In  addition  to  the  above  a  deed  purporting  to  be  from 
George  M.  Willing,  (father  of  Dr.  George  M.  Willing,  de- 
ceased), to  Brittain  A.  Hill  is  on  file,  and  two  reports  made  by 
Rufus  C.  Hopkins  and  a  brief  in  the  case  by  Hon.  Clark 
Churchill,  also  a  brief  i^'  Reavis.  The  above  enumerated 
papers,  together  with  some  unimportant  letters,  complete  the 
papers  in  the  case.  The  alleged  title  papers  filed  originally 
in  the  office  of  the  United  States  Surveyor-General  (March 
27th,  1883),  upon  which  the  claimant  to  the  so-called  Peralta 
Grant  made  his  entire  claim  to  the  property  as  defined  in  the 
petition  of  Reavis,  were  bound  together  in  pamphlc^t  form  by  ' 
a  cotton  cloth  back,  and  consist  of  a  title  page  and   six   other 


SURVEYOR  GENERAL^S  REPORT.  9 

pages  of  printed  and  written  matter,  all  in  the  Spanish  lan- 
guage. Nothing  of  a  satisfactory  nature  was  filed  contemn 
poraneously  or  has  been  since  to  show  how  claimant  Reavis, 
who  filed  these  papers,  got  possession  of  what  he  termed 
"  Original  Papers"  at  the  time  of  filing.  Nothing  as  to  where 
these  "Original  Papers"  had  been  for  the  one  hundred  and 
thirty  years  or  n^ore  during  which  period  of  time  they  are 
claimed  to  have  been  in  existence.  Nothing  even  as  to  who 
the  last  man  was  that  transferred  these  old  papers  to  Reavis 
or  whence  they  came  in  any  instance.  They  are  simply  pro^ 
duced  by  Reavis,  and  thisoflSce  is  given  to  understand  that 
the  papers  are  simon  pure  productions  from  the  proper  sources. 
The  clainiant  Reavis  did  make  an  oral  statement  »»f  a  roman- 
tic nature  to  me  personally  to  the  eflfcct  that  long  after  Dr. 
Willing's  death  in  Yavapai  county,  through  whom  Reavis 
originally  claimed  title,  he  (Reavis),  went  to  Yavapai  county 
in  search  of  any  efifects  belonging  to  the  deceased  Dr.  Willing 
and  finally  his  trip  was  made  fruitful  by  finding  the  papers 
above  referred  to  stored  away  in  an  old  cabin  attic  in  a  gunny 
or  grip  sack,  from  which  place  of  deposit  he  managed  dex-» 
terously  to  take  them  without  the  knowledge  of  the  then  cus- 
todian, an  ex-probate  official  of  Yavapai  county,  Arizona,  so 
that  claimant  cannot  even  prove  that  he  got  the  papers  in  the 
way  claimed,  or  that  they  were  ever  even  in  Dr.Willing's  pos- 
session ;  but  I  want  to  call  |  articular  attention  right  here  to 
the  fact  that  claimant  Reavis  alleged  that  the  papers  were  in 
Dr.  Willing's  possession  in  view  of  the  fact  of  his  having 
abandoned  this  deraignment  of  title  through  the  said  Dr^ 
Willing,  alleging  that  such  deraignment  was  void;  that  Dr. 
Willing  never  had  a  bona  fide  title ;  in  other  words  that 
Peralta  deeding  to  Willing  had  no  title  whatever  ;  in  fact  was 
a  fraud.  How,  then,  in  light  of  claimant's  own  assertions  re- 
garding the  title,  did  Dr.  Willing  become  possessed  of  what 
claimant  asserted  to  be  original  title  papers,  and  where  did  he 
get  them  if  the  Peralta  who  deeded  the  property  to  him  had  no 
title  to  it,  but  was  a  fraud,  and  how  did  Reavis  find  them  amonjj 


10  SURVEYOR  GENERAL  S    REPORT. 


Willing's  papers?  Thus  Reavis  fails  to  account  in  tlie  very 
first  instance  how  he  came  to  possess  the  papers  originally 
depended  on  to  prove  his  litle,  or  if  we  accept  his  romantic 
story  of  their  recovery  from  Dr.  Willing's  effects  he  places 
them  in  the  hands  of  a  man  whom  he  now  alleges  had  no 
title,  and  makes  him  the  last  custodian  before  the  petitioner 
Reavis.  It  may  be  that  the  object  of  the  letter  on  the  last 
slieet  of  the  document  under  consideration,  said  to  be  from 
Santa  Ana,  President  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  is  to  account 
for  the  presence  in  this  country  of  these  papers,  making  it  ap- 
pear that  Santa  Ana,  President  of  a  Republic,  sent  them  to 
the  man  Peralta,  who  deeded  to  Willing  at  Wickenburg,  from 
whom  Willing  possibly  received  them  at  the  same  time  he  is 
said  to  have  received  the  deed.  If  the  claimant  takes  this 
stand  then  he  has  to  maintain  according  to  the  title  he  now 
alleges  as  the  perfect  one,  that  Santa  Ana,  President  of  tli3 
Republic  of  Mexico,  took  the  trouble  to  gather  up  original 
papers  from  the  archives  of  Mexico  and  send  theni  to  a  stran- 
gQr  in  the  United  States  without  the  stranger  being  satisfac- 
torily identified,  and  as  a  result  of  such  gross  carelessness  on 
President  Santa  Ana's  part,  he  sent  them  to  a  fraud  in  tho 
person  of  ihe  man  Peralta,  from  whom  Willing  is  supposed  to 
have  received  the  deed  for  the  property.  This  must  be  Reavis' 
position,  and  all  this  is  highly  improbable  and  does  not  bear 
the  impress  of  truth  or  ordinary  sense  or  reflect  credit  on  the 
claimant.  Governments,  and  particularly  the  Spanish  and 
Mexican  people,  zealously  look  after  their  archives  and  pride 
themselveson  their  system  of  records,  and  they  do  not  at  the 
mere  solicitation  of  an  absolute  stranger  deplete  their  archves 
by  gathering  up  and  sending  original  papers  of  great  value  to 
unknown  persons.  At  the  time  Reavis  filed  Santa  Ana's 
alleged  letter  to  account  for  the  papers  being  in  the  hands  of 
the  Mi<xuel  Peralta  ofWickenburjr,  and  through  him  in  Dr. 
AVilling's  possession,  he  was  claiming  under  a  deraignment 
of  title  through  Dr.  Willing  and  the  Wickenburg  Peralta.  In 


11 


proceeding  to  consiier  the  dociiraents  originally  filed  by 
Reavis,  and  alleged  to  have  been  fonnd  by  Reavis  at  Prescott 
among  Dr.  Willi ng's  long  neglected  posthumos  effects,  upon 
which  Reavis  originally  rested  his  whole  title,  I  shall  take  the 
ground  that  he  filed  for  consideration  all  the  papers  he  coy  Id 
possibly  produce  at  tliat  time,  and  that  he  rested  his  case  and 
he  certainly  closed  his  exparte  showing  by  submitting  his 
brief.  The  other  claimants  likewise  producedin  those  same 
papers  the  best  results  obtainable.  I  shall  consider  these 
papers  in  the  light  of  their  competentcy  as  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  the  claim  set  up. 

The  first  or  title  sheet  is  old  and  dilapidated,  lull  of  holes 
where  t4ie  ink  is  supposed  to  have  eaten  through  or  where  the 
paper  is  supposed  to  have  yielded  to  the  ravages  ot  time.  In 
its  upper  left  hand  corner,  over  what  may  be  sealing  wax,  is 
what  appears  to  be  a  small,  irregular  piece  of  bond  or  parch- 
ment paper,  pasted  on  without  any  apparent  significance  or 
meaning.  The  front  of  the  sheet  is  printed  Spanish  and  reads 
as  follows: 

"Book  which  only  serves  to  note  therein  the  deposits 
that  may  be  delivered  to  me  by  order  of  the  Royal  Holy 
Inquisition  for  the  proofs  of  petitioners  that  may  be  as  a  de- 
pos.tory  of  the  same,  June  23rd,  1768." 

Now  this  frontispiece  to  this  remarkable  production  ot 
alleged  antiquity  would  indicate  that  it  was  a  cover  to  a 
book  of  records  of  the  acts  of  the  Inquisition,  and  certainly 
leads  me  to  suspect  that  it  was  copied  from  some  such  book. 
In  this  particular  instance  it  seems  much  out  of  place,  as  what 
follows  this  original  sheet  under  consideration  is  not  sueh  rec- 
ords as  are  kept  by  such  officials  as  the  reading  on  the  page 
would  indicate,  the  reading  on  the  page  would  make  the  man 
in  whose  possession  it  is,  a  recorder  of  papers  of  the  Holy  Inqui- 
sition, and  should  appear  on  the  cover  of  a  general  record 
book  of  such  papers;  instead  of  which  it  is  filed  here  as  a 
frontispiece  of  half  a  dozen  pages  of  matter,  all  of  which  pages 


12         SURVEYOR  GENERALS  REPORT. 


appertaiti  to  the  alleged  grant  of  Peralta,  and  in  no  way, 
shape  or  form,  go  to  make  up  several  acts  of  the  Royal  Inqui- 
sition, as  the  i)age  referred  to  indicates. 

This  page  simply  plays  no  important  part  whatever  in 
this  case,  and  is  not  germane  to  iU  consideration,  but  I  want 
to  call  particular  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  name  Peralta 
does  not  even  appear  in  any  way,  shape  or  form  on  this  out- 
side sheet,  as  would  naturally  be  expected.  On  the  back  of 
this  front  or  title  page,  on  which  it  will  b3  remembered  is  pasted 
a  yellow  sheet  of  thin  parchment  paper,  calculated  to  hide 
from  view  the  back  of  the  title  page.  By  raising  this  yellovr 
sheet  of  paper  it  was  found  that  the  great  defect  of  the  title 
sheet  had  been  remedied  by  the  following  words  in  writing  : 
'In  relation  to  the  concession  to  the  Senor  Don  Miguel  de 
Peralta,  Baron  of  the  Colorados." 

This  writing  has  been  added  to  the  back  of  this  page 
within  a  few  years,  and  of  course  was  placed  there  for  thepui- 
pose  of  connecting  the  title  sheet  with  Don  Miguel  de  Pera!ta. 
It  is  written  with  a  steel  pen,  hair  lines  being  apparent 
throughout  the  entire  writing,  and  the  ink  used  seems  to  be 
he  same  as  that  in  which  the  King's  name  is  signed  on  the 
succeeding  pages. 

The  person  adding  this  writing  evidently  appreciated  the 
importance  of  connecting  the  outside  page  with  Don  Miguel 
de  Peralta.  The  next  page  is  mostly  printed  in  beautiful 
type.  I  have  examined  this  printing  very  critically  in  con- 
nection with  printing  done  in  Mexico  during  the  same  cen- 
tury by  the  Inquisition.  I  find  an  altogether  different  ap- 
pearance in  the  printing  under  discussion  from  those  papers 
issiied  by  the  Inquisition  from  the  City  of  Mexico,  with  which 
I  have  compared  it.  (See  letter  herewith  from  Assistant 
Librarian  of  Congress,  to  whom  I  submitted  a  photographic 
copy  of  this  printing  for  comparison).  One  very  important 
diff*erence  is  that  while  the  papers  filed  by  Reavis  invariably 
shows  a  fine  cut  shapely  modern  S,  whether  the  letters  appear 
in  the  middle  or  at  the  end  ef  the  word;  the  documents  issued 


SURVEYOR  GENERAL*S  REPORT.  13 

by  the  Inquisition  used  both  the  old-fashioned  and  modern  S 
according  to  their  position  in  the  word,  and  the  modern  S  is 
not  the  shapely  S  used  in  the^  Peralta  papers  ;  some  writing 
and  rubricas  appear  on  this  isheet.  "Yo  el  Rey"  is  printed  at 
the  bottom  of  the  printed  matter.  A  seal  printed  on  the  paper 
also  appears.  It  is  not  impressed  on  the  paper,  and  has  no 
special  significance  unless  to  simply  indicate  that  it  was  used 
on  a  great  deal  of  paper  of  this  kind,  therefore  by  proper  in- 
ference if  used  in  large  quantities  for  like  purposes  it  would 
be  comparatively  easy  to  obtain  and  would  not  be  difficult  to 
duplicate.  Tiie  signature  of  the  Seuor  Minister  of  State,  "Don 
Jose  de  Carvajal  y  Linciiter,"  is  printed, and  under  it  appears 
a  rubrica.  There  are  many  rubricas  over  this  sheet  and  the 
claimants  fail  to  offer  any  evidence  whatever  as  to  whose 
rubricas  they  are.  It  is  not  to  be  suppose  I  that  a  grant  fifty 
by  one  hundrol  and  fifty  miles  of  the  best  land  in  Arizona  is 
to  pass  on  the  strength  of  a  few  rubricas  that  any  boy  might 
imitate  without  corroborative  evidence  as  to  the  genuineness. 
It  is  my  experience  that  even  genuine  rubricas  vary  very 
much.  In  considering  a  document  of  the  import  of  the  one 
at  present  under  consideration,  wt:  would  naturally  suppose 
that  it  would  be  taken  from  department  to  department  of  the 
government,  to  receive  the  several  signatures  and  rubricas 
this  page  purports  to  convey  and  t'aat  considerable  variation 
would  appear  in  the  pens  and  ink  used  ;  but  an  a[)pearance 
of  similiarity  is  uniformly  preserved  throughout  the  entire 
page.  To  the  right  of  the  small  seal  printed  on  the  paper 
above  referred  to,  the  Senior  Minister  of  the  Council  of  State 
certifies  that  he  has  annexed  the  great  seal  of  the  state  to  the 
sheet.  This  expression  of  the.  Minister  of  State  would  lead  us 
to  expect  that  the  impress  of  the  great  seal  of  state  would  be 
found  impressed  or  attached  to  the  sheet.  Nothing  of  the 
kind  appears,  and  in  place  of  the  attaclied  seal  that  the  Min- 
ister seems  to  refer  to,  we  simply  have  a  little  printed  so.il. 
This  little  printed  seal  may  have  been    printed    on    reams    of 


14 


blank  paper  used  for  royal  purposes  during  the  past  century  ; 
if  such  was  the  case  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  secure  a  sheet 
of  paper  with  this  small  seal  printed  thereon  and  add  above 
such  seal  the  printed  matter  which  is  found  above  the  seal 
under  consideration  and  which  presents  such  a  modern  appear- 
ance as  far  as  the  type  used  is  concerned.  It  will  he  borne 
in  mind  that  the  claimant  Raavis  under  the  present  claim  of 
his  wife  does  not  assert  this  sheet  to  be  the  original  "Ceclula 
of  Ferdinand  the  VI,"  but  produces  in  his  new  claim  what  he 
asserts  to  be  the  original  "Cedula." 

Under  these  circumstances  I  would  like  to  ask  claimant 
how  all  the  prior  alleged  original  rubrical  cmne  on  this  sheet  if 
it  is  not  an  original  cedula,  as  formerly  claimed  by  Reavisf 

This  remarkable  sheet  is  dated  January  3rd,  1748.  A 
paper  of^this  description  counts  for  nothing  in  considering  the 
case,  as  its  validity  is  in  no  way  proven.  Nothing  to  show 
that  it  is  an  original  document  or  a  bona  fide  reproduction  of 
the  same  is  offered.  It  is  simply  submitted  for  what  it  is  worth, 
and  is  not  competent  evidence  in  the  consideration  of  a  case 
either  in  court  or  in  the  o'lfice  of  a  Surveyor-General.  Much 
of  the  writing  on  this  sheet  bears  evidence  of  having  been 
done  with  a  steel  pen,  which,  of  course,  is  impossible  if  the 
document  was  executed  at  the  date  it  is  alleged  to  have  been, 
as  the  steel  pen  made  its  first  appearance  in  an  imperfect  con- 
dition in  1803,  but  was  not  made  useful  for  many  years  after 
that  date.  On  this  sheet  also  appears  "Yo  el  Rey"  with  a 
rubrica,  represented  of  course  to  be  the  King's,  and  judging 
from  the  date  in  connection  therewith,  December  2d,  1772,  it 
is  meant  for  the  rubrica  of  Carlos  III  of  Spain.  The  Ameri- 
can Minister  at  Madrid  in  answer  to  a  letter  from  me,  sent 
through  the  Interior  and  State  Departments  during  my  pre- 
vious term  as  Surveyor-General,  sent  me  a  tracing  of  the 
name  of  Carlos  III,  signed  by  the  King  in  1759,  and  it  ap- 
pears as  "Carlos"  with  a  rubrica.  This  plays  no  important 
part,  as  it  was  customary  to  sign  documents  "Yo  el  Rey." 
The  "  Yo  el  Rey  "  appears  to  have  been   written    with  a  stub 


SUKVEYOR  general's  REPORT  15 

pju  or  quill.  Nothing  appears  on  this  page  entitled  to 
credit,  considered  without  corroborating  evidence.  This  docu- 
ment was  primarily  alleged  to  be  the  original  cedula  or  de- 
cree of  King  Ferdinand  the  VI,  ordering  the  grant  to  be 
made,  and  was  presented  to  this  office  as  such,  though  now  one 
of  the  claimants,  Reavis,  claims  to  have  since  discovered 
the  original  cedula  in  Spain,  and  now  if  he  attaches  any  im- 
portance whatever  to  the  paper  he  originally  urged  upon  this 
office  as  the  original  cedula,  which  I  am  now  considering,  it 
must  be  a  mere  copy. 

This  is  an  important  feature  inthe  case,  showing  how  com- 
pletely claimant  Reavis  his  abandoned  what  he  originally  pre- 
feented  as  his  title  papers,  without  submitting  any  good  reason  for 
doing  so.  A  good  reason,  however,  may  be  supplied  claimant 
Reavis  when  the  Massol  affidavit  is  taken  into  consideration. 
Next  in  order  considering  this  document  comes  three  pages  of 
written  matter  in  the  same  handwriting.  It  purports  to  be  a 
copy  of  the  report  of  the  Inquisition  on  the  grant  proposed  to 
be  given  to  Peralta  and  also  a  copy  of  the  grant  a^  actually 
made  by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain,  as  well  as  a  lame  descript 
tion  of  the  locus  of  the  grant.  The  original  report  of  the 
Inquisition  and  the  original  grant  of  the  Viceroy  made  about 
the  middle  of  the  last  century  are  not  produced,  and  unques^ 
tionably  have  not  been  found  ;  but  in  lieu  of  the  original 
papers  so  very  important  in  considering  this  case  these  poor 
substitutes  are  produced.  Why  the  locus  of  the  original  can- 
not be  established  when  correct  copies  can  be  made  from  them 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand.  Reason  dictates  that  if  bona 
fide  copies  from  originals  on  file  can  be  produced  there  ought 
to  be  no  trouble  in  locating  the  place  of  deposit  of  such 
originals. 

When  we  stop  and  reflect  on  the  learned  body  ot  men 
comprising  the  Holy  Inquisition  this  alleged  copy  is  but  a 
sorry  exhibit  of  their  handiwork  at  producing  certified  records. 
It  lacks  every  appearance,  (with  the  possible  exception  of 
old  age)  that  would  naturally  be  expected  in  a  certified    rec- 


16  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT 


ord  of  such  important  documenU  by  such   an    educated    body 

of  men. 

This  paper  demands  our  careful  attention,  as  it  is  a  paper 
playing  no  unimportant  part  in  considering  the  question 
whether  these  papers  have  not  been  fiibricated  in  aid  of  estab'* 
lishing  a  title  to  a  large  proportion  of  our  territory.  At  the 
end  of  the  pages  under  consideration  appear  the  words  "A 
Copy,  June  23rd,  1768,"  and  a  large  seal,  claimed  to  be  the 
seal  of  the  Inquisition.  This  seal  is  not  impressed  on  the  page 
proper,  but  is  on  a  separate  piece  of  parchment  paper  pasted 
on  the  page.  When  claimant  Keavis  filed  his  "original" 
papers  he  pointed  to  the  seal  of  the  Inquisition  as  being  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  paper  bearing  its 
impress.  Being  desirous  of  ascertaining  how  difficult  it  would 
be  to  procure  these  seals  of  the  Inquisition  and  to  satisfy  my- 
self a«  to  the  probability  of  a  person  being  able  to  secure  them 
for  the  purpose  of  fabricating  a  paper  purporting  to  be  from 
the  Holy  Inquisition  of  New  Spain,  I  sent  a  letter  to  the 
proper  Mexican  authorities,  and  as  a  result  a  duplicate  of  the 
seal  produced  on  the  Peralta  papers  has  been  furnished  me. 
The  following  is  a  quotation  from  the  letter  sending  the  seals: 
"  I  enclose  three  documents  found  in  said  archives  and  which 
could  be  spared  from  them,  containing  the  impress  of  the  seal 
of  the  said  ecclesiastical  tribunal."  The  attachment  of  the 
seal  of  the  Holy  Inquisition  to  the  paper  filed  by  Reavis  carries 
no  weight  whatever  with  me  under  the  circumstances,  inas- 
much as  I  have  been  able  to  secure  from  Mexico  an  exact 
duplicate  which  I  could  attach  to  as  solemn  a  document  as 
Reavis  claims  his  document  to  be  in  the  space  of  one  minute. 
The  production  of  the  counterpart  of  his  seal,  so  easily  ob- 
tained and  the  wording  of  letter  transmitting  them,  shows  be- 
yond controversy  that  the  impress  was  readily  obtainable 
and  thereafter  could  be  utilized  for  the  fabrication  of   papers. 

One  very  noticeable  feature  in  comparing  the  seal  of  the 
Inquisitio:i  obtained  by  me  from  undoubted  sources  of  validity 


SURVEYOK  GENERAL'8  REPORT  17 

with  that  filed  in  the  case  b}'  Reavis  on  his  document,  is  that 
the  seal  obtained  by  me  was  impressed  on  the  paper  with  a 
metal  seal,  which,  while  it  made  its  impress  on  the  face  of  the 
seal,  at  the  same  time  made  a  corresponding  impress  on  the 
back  of  the  parchment  paper  to  which  said  seal  was  attached, 
while  the  seal  cm  the  Reavis  documents  appears  to  be  simply 
pasted  on  the  paper  under  consideration  and  shows  no  evi- 
dence whatever  of  having  been  impressed  thereon  by  a  metal 
seal;  the  parchment  paper  directly  back  of  such  seal  of  the 
Inquisition  is  smooth,  its  smoothness  evidently  being  foreign 
to  any  impress  whatever.  Although  the  seal  obtained  by  me 
is  much  older  than  the  period  in  which  the  Reavis  seal  is 
alleged  to  have  been  attached,  it  does  not  present  the  brown 
appearance  of  the  Reavis  seal.  Said  brown  color  looking  as 
though  it  might  have  been  scorched  by  being  heated  over  a 
flame  for  detachment  from  its  original  resting  place,  or  in 
placing  it  in  its  present  position.  In  further  proof  it  is 
cracktd  as  though  scorched.  It  is  folly  to  talk  about  land 
grant  records  from  the  archives  of  the  Inquisition  as  the  law 
existed. 

At  this  stage  of  this  report  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  all  important  paper  of  this  claim,  the  paper  whose  exist- 
ence must  be  proven  or  the  claim  that  such  a  grant  ever  ex- 
isted for  a  moment  must  fall  to  the  ground,  is  the  origmal 
grant  of  the  Viceroy.  This  paper  must  be  produced  to  show 
that  the  ivordii  ol  recommendation  attributed  to  Ferdinand  VI 
in  his  communication  to  the  Viceroy  had  received  any  weight 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Viceroy,  or  that  he  had  acted  on  the  King's 
suggestion  and  made  a  grant  to  Peralta.  Of  course  if  claim- 
ants cannot  in  a  perfectly  clear  way  prove  that  the  Viceroy 
granted  the  land  their  case  is  at  an  end.  The  King's  words, 
if  we  allow  that  he  wrote  them,  or  caused  them  to  be  written, 
were  onlv  words  of  recommendation,  and  it  was  left  to  the 
Viceroy  to  carry  out  the  granting  of  the  land  if  he  saw  fit 
aud  to  refuse  to  do  so  if  he  saw  fit. 

It  now  becomes  an  all  important  proposition  in  the  sup- 
port of  this  claim  to  get  the  original  "g:rant"  of  the    Viceroy 


18  SURVEYOIl  GENERAL  S    REPORT. 


or  it  that  cannot  be  done  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the  gov- 
ernment for, the  plaintifis  to  ^ccure  such  a  copy  of  theoriginal 
as  the  claimants  consider  the  government  will  recognize.  To 
this  end  are  produced  the  papers  under  consideration.  No 
certificate  of  a  modern  date  nor  any  other  reliable  certifis 
cation  appears  on  tlie  copies  which  would  point  to  jthe  origi- 
nals being  at  present  in  the  custody  of  some  custodian  of 
archives  where  they  could  be  readily  located  and  seen,  but 
the  certification  of  the  copies  is  remarkably  ancient  and  un- 
satisfactory, and  nothing  's  at  hand  of  an  acceptable  nature 
in  a  court  or  in  this  office  to  enable  i.ne  to  ascertain  the  where- 
abouts of  originals  or  to  prove  their  existence,  and  if  they 
were  to  be  obtained  it  is  the  duty  of  the  claimants  to  produce 
them  or  to  obtain  and  submit  undoubted  proof  of  their  exist- 
en'^e  in  their  proper  archives. 

The  above  referred  to  certified  copy  is  produced  without 
showing  where  it  was  certified  from,  unless  the  writing  is 
under  the  seal  of  the  Inquisition,  and  it  is  expected  by  the 
claimants  that  this  poor  specimen  ot  a  copy  shall  play  an  im- 
.portant  part  in  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  grant.  The 
inability  to  ascertain  where  this  paper  was  written  or  the  place 
of  deposit  of  the  originals  invalidates  the  entire  paper.  The 
signature  and  rubricas  attached  to  this  document  have  the 
appearance  of  being  written  by  one  man,  with  the  ^^ame  pen 
and  ink,  and  could  be  easily  reproduced  by  a  good  penman. 
The  paper  looks  old.  I  want  to  particularly  impress  upon 
the  mind  the  fact  that  the  copy  of,  or  possibly,  it  may  be 
claimed,  the  original  of  the  Viceroy's  grant  is  claimed  to  have 
been  on  deposit  in  the  archives  of  the  Holy  Inquisition, 
whence  the  copies  under  consideration  are  al'eged  to  have 
come  certified  by  the  priests,  otherwise,  of  course,  the  alleged 
copies  could  not  have  l)een  made  from  the  ecclesiastical 
archives. 

By  what  propriety  an  original  grant,  or  a  copy  of  such  a 
grant,  by  a  Viceroy  should  leave  its  natural  channel  in  the 
governmental  archives  to  become  part  and  parcel  of  the 
ecclesiastical  records  i^  not  shown.     It  is  certainlyout  of  place 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  19 

among  such  recor'ls. 

The  last  sheet  of  this  document  is  covered  with  writing, 
rubricas,  etc.  On  one  side  is  what  purports  to  be  a  letter  i'nfm 
Miguel  Peralta  to  the  King  of  Spain,  Carlos  III  asking  a  re- 
confirmation of  the  grant,  and  his  (Peralta's)  location  of  the 
same.  He  particularly  states  that  his  land  contain-  much 
mineral.  It  is  dated  in  Mexico,  the  first  of  August  1768,  when 
Peralta,  according  to  claim,  was  an  old  man.  The  writing  is 
made  to  appear  as  the  writing  of  an  aged  and  decrepit  man, 
Below  this  letter  sometiiing  is  written  which  it  is  impossible  to 
correctly  decipher  on  account  of  its  torn  and  mutilated  condi- 
tion, but  it  is  evidently  intended  for  some  writing  in  connec- 
tion with  the  King's  alleged  signature  on  the  following  page, 
in  confirming  the  grant  to  Peralta,  as  at  the  top  of  the  other 
side  of  the  sheet,  the  last  page  of  the  papers  bound  together, 
appears" January  22nd  1776,"'*Yo  el  Rey,"with  rubrica,  with- 
out the  slightest  mention  of  Peralta  or  his  alleged  grant  or 
any  words  of  confirmation.  The  signature  "Yo  el  Rey"  and 
the  rubrica  following,  in  both  instances,  are  unquestionably 
written  by  the  same  person,  and  are  claimed  to  have  been  at- 
tached by  Carlos  III,  when  the  papers  were  returned  to  him 
for  reconfirmation  by  Miguel  Peralta.  A  difference  of  over 
three  years  is  made  to  appear  in  the  dates  connected  with  these 
signatures.  The  first  signature  has  preceding  it  "Passed  be- 
fore me,  dated  in  Madrid  on  the  second  of  December  1772,  Yo 
el  Rey."  The  last  signature  is  claimed  to  be  the  King's  and 
alleged  to  have  oeen  attached  at  the  same  time  when  Peralta 
asked  for  reconfirmation  has  the  date  "January  22nd,  1776." 
How  this  occurred,  or  how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for  no  evidence 
is  offered  to  show,  but  under  the  circumstance  it  is  a  very 
noticeable  discrepancy.  Following  "Yo  el  Rey"  and  the 
rubrica  referred  to  is  a  seal  similar  to  the  one  described  by  me 
as  being  on  the  title  of  first  page.  It  looks  like  a  daub  of  seal- 
ing wax,  with  a  little  piece  of  parchment  paper  ntuckon  w.iile 
hot,  and  is  about  the  size  of  a  five  cent  nickel   piece. 

Nothing  is  filed  to  show  how  this  last  paper  became  at- 
tached to  the  other  papers  unless  some  writing  at  the    foot  of 


20  SURVEYOR     GE^EKAl/S    REPORT. 


the  page,  badly  torn  and  disfigured  with  parts  of  the  paper 
missing,  i?  allowed  to  account  for  it.  It  is  filed  as  a  letter  from 
Santa  Ana,  President  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  to  Miguel  de 
Peralta,  .«on  of  the  original  grantee,  then  living  at  San  Diego, 
California. 

He  goes  <m  to  say  to  the  son  of  the  oTantee,  that  diligent 
search  has  been  made,  through  his  several  ministers,  for  the 
papers  relating  to  the  concession  to  his  father,  and  that  all 
fhat  could  he  found  he  sent  to  him,  and  in  relation  to  the  por- 
tion lying  in  the  United  States  of  Mexico  he  assures  the  son 
he  will  be  secure  with  these  papers,  although  he  has  separated 
the  originals;  and  he  believes  he  will  be  equally  secure  in  that 
part  lying  in  the  United  States.  Th'^  letter  is  dited  May 
10th,  1853. 

Now  this  would  seem  to  intimate  that  Santa  Ana  had 
possibly  fastened  these  papers  together  in  sending  them  to 
Peralta's  son;  but  this  would  be  contradictorv  of  the  idea  that 
Peralta  himself  had  submitted  all  chese  papers  together  to 
Carlos  in,  with  his  letter  asking  reconfirmation,  four  score 
years  before,  and  the  claim  that  King  Carlos  III,  had  signed  the 
document  twice,  once  on  the  first,  (or  Ferdinand's  cedula  sheet) 
and  once  on  the  last  page,  would  go  to  show  that  the  papers  were 
together  when  submitted  to  him,  provided  his  signatures  are  gen- 
uine; instead  of  having  been  gathered  together  by  Santa  Ana 
in  1853.  Then  again  the  two  small  seals  claimed  to  be  royal 
seals,  appear  on  the  front  or  title  page  and  on  the  back  page 
after  the  alleged  signature  of  (Carlos  III,  seeming  to  be  exact 
duplicates. 

An  inconsistency  at  least  is  apparent  as  to  when  these 
papers  were  first  gotten  together.  The  whole  document  to 
my  mind,  where  writiuir  or  printing  appears,  shows  the  proba- 
bility of  being  a  modern  production.  It  is  not  to  be  enter- 
tained as  evidence  as  it  appears  of  record  in  this  office,  and 
must  remain  a  lot  ot  unauthenticated  copies  at  best,  and  can 
in  no  way  be  (considered  as  (competent  evidence  to  the  validity 


SURVEYOR  GENERAL^S  REPORT.  21 

of  the  Peralta  claim  as  it  in  no  way  establishes   the  grant  by 
the  Viceroy. 

If  I  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  alleged 
letter  of  Santa  Ana  is  genuine,  he  practically  informs  young 
Peralta  of  the  loss  of  the  originals,  and  that  his  claim  in  the 
United  States  without  them  is  doubtful,  and  further  informs 
him  that  they  have  sent  all  the  documents  that  a  very  careful 
:^earch  brought  to  light. 

The  letter  of  Santa  Ana's,  if  genuine,  would  only  be  im- 
portant to  show,  that  though  the  records  of  Mexico  were 
searched  with  all  the  great  facilities  of  the  government  itself 
at  the  instigation  of  the  President  of  that  Government  no  other 
papera  were  on  file  anywhere,  consequently  a  natural  deduc- 
tion is  that  papers  now  found  were  surreptiously  put  in  the 
archives  after  President  Santa  Ana's  thorough  search  had 
failed  to  Jiul  them. 

The  claimants  in  urging  the  validity  of  Santa  Ana's  let- 
ter really  put  a  quietus  on  their  production  of  any  more 
papers  from  the  Mexican  archives.  Still  the  claimant  Reavis 
produces,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  further  papers  from  Gua  *'< 
alajara,  the  very  first  place  where  President  Santa  Ana  would 
naturally  look  for  official  documents,  that  being  one  of  the 
proper  places  of  record  of  such  documents  as  belonged  to  New 
Spain;  and  Reavis  although  a  private  citizen  of  a  foreign 
country  accomplishes  what  President  Santa  Ana,  with  all  his 
great  power,  could  not  accomplish. 

I  will  say  in  closing  my  examination  of  the  papers  origi- 
nally filed  that  where  writing  appears  for  the  royal  signature 
to  follow  it  is  of  a  character  that  might  be  attributed  to  a 
twelve-year  old  schoolboy,  instead  of  bearing  out  the  reputation 
possessed  by  Spain  at  that  time  of  being  in  advance  of  the 
world's  civilization  in  this  respect.  The  whole  appearance  of 
the  papers  is  against  their  validity.  These  papers  were  filed 
by  Reavis  as  the  evidence  of  his  claim  to  be  one  of  the  largest 
land  owners  in  the  world,  and  at  the  same  time  of  their  filing, 
and  for  a  long  time  thereafter,  he,  as  well  as  the  other  claimants, 
rested  their  entire  case  on  their    nierits,    claiming:    that    even 


22  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 


if  they  could  not  prove  the  first   printed    page   ordering  the 
Viceroy  to  make  the  grant  to  be    an    originri    cedula   of  the 
King  Ferdinand  VI,  it  was  finally  made  an  original  b}r  the  re- 
confirmation of  Carlos  III,  when  he  twice  attached    his    royal 
signature  to  the  papers,  and  it  is  my  opinion    that  the    whole 
object  of  the  signature  of    Carlos  III  was  to  fill  the  void  cre- 
ated by  inability  to  plausibly    produce    the   original    recom- 
mendation of  the  King,  Ferdinand  VI,  or  the  original    grant 
by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain.     The  claim   however   that    the 
signature  of  Carlos  III  made  the  paper  an    original    grant    is 
farcical.     By  their  own  showing  the  claimants  make  Peralta 
the  sender  of  the  papers  to  the  King,    and    it    is    represented 
that  Carlos  III,  upon  the  mere  statement  by  Peralta    that    he 
had  such  a  grant,  confirmed  the  grant  that  the    Vicerov    had 
made.     It  seems  to  me  that  the  allegation  that    Peralta   ever 
sent    the  papers    to  Carlos  III  with    the    representation    that 
he  had  a  grant,  and  asked  him  to  confirm  it,  is  a  shrewd  mov^e, 
to  formulate  a  new  and  equally  fraudulent    claim  in  case    the 
Viceroy  claim  failed  on  account    of  close    research.     Why,  I 
want  to  ask,  if  Peralta  had  received  a  grant  of  land  from  the 
Viceroy    under    the    recommendation     of  Kinor    Ferdinand 
VI,  which  claimants  assert  positively    carried    minerals,    etc., 
in  specific  terms  in  the  original    grant    by    the    Viceroy,   did 
Peralta  take  the  trouble  to  have  it  all    done    over    again  by 
Carlos  III  when  Peralta  should  have  been  in    full    possession 
more  than  ten  years  before?     I  cannot  entertain   such  a  silly 
proposition,  and  I  think  it  only  figures  in    this    case   to    help 
the  claim  out  on  account  of  the   original    grant   itself   being 
absent  and  unaccounted  for.     Then  if  Peralta,    the   grantee, 
had  the  original  papers,  especially  the  grant  by    the    Viceroy, 
why  did  he  not  send    them   to  Carlos  III?    The  King, Carlos 
III,  don't  say  he  makes  a  grant ;  he  is  made  to  appear  in  the 
light  of  attaching  his  signature  to  a  grant  already   made,  and 
the  way  his  name  appears  on  the  last  sheet  withou  the    words 
of  confirmation  on  the  same  sheet  even  or  legible,    makes    the 
whole  proposition  absurd, 

I  want  to  call  attention  here  t.)  the  fact  that  although  the 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  23 

King  in  his  alleged  order  to  the  Viceroy  to  make  the  grant 
explicitly  states  that  it  is  upon  the  recommendation  of  the 
Inquisition  still  the  claimants  do  not  file  or  allege  that  they 
have  found  the  original  recommendation  of  the  Inquisition 
prior  to  1748  (  when  Ferdinand  VI  is  said  to  have  made  the 
grant)  and  inasmuch  as  they  have  produced  similiar  evidence 
from  the  records  of  the  Inquisition,  I  am  wholly  unable  to 
understand  how  so  important  a  document  ais  this  original 
recommendation  was  not  found,  if  in  existence,  as  on  account  oi 
its  being  the  original  act  of  the  Inquisition  that  brought  about 
the  alleged  action  of  Ferdinand  VI,  it  should  by  all  means 
have  been  produced  from  the  archives.  I  don't  want  to  con 
found  the  original  recommendation  of  the  Inquisition  prior  to 
the  year  1748,  wkioh  I  now  ask  for,  and  which  the  king  refers 
to  in  his  alleged  recommendation  to  the  viceroy,  with  the  al- 
leged copy  that  is  produced  of  an  alleged  report  of  the  Inqui- 
sition in  the  premises.  This  latter  act  of  the  Inquisition 
purporting  to  be  the  report  on  the  location,  etc.,  occurred 
several  years  after  King  Ferdinand's  alleged  recommendation 
to  the  viceroy. 

Ferdinand  VI  is  also  made  to  refer  in  his  recommenda- 
tion to  the  viceroy  to  a  recommendation  to  him  of  a  "consulado" 
and  "superior  judge"  approved  by  the  government  and  pres 
sented  to  the  general  military  board.  Clpimants  do  not 
account  for  the  non  production  of  the  originals  or  satisfactory 
copies  of  these  papers,  and  say  nothing  as  to  where  they  are. 
They  ought  to  be  easily  produced. 

One  of  the  most  important  facts  to  consider  in  this  paper, 
the  sheets  of  which  are  pasted  together  with  cloth,  is  that 
neither  on  the  title  page  (where  it  properly  belongs)  nor  on 
the  last  page  where  the  king's  signature  is  alleged  to  be  signed 
does  the  name  of  Miguel  Peralta  appear  or  anything  in  con- 
nection with  a  grant  to  him;  which  founds  a  very  reasonable 
suspicion  that  these  pages  might  have  been  used  originally  for 
some  other  purpose.  In  connection  with  the  king's  alleged 
approval  of  the  grant,  nothing  but  the  date  above  the  alleged  sig- 
nature of  the  king  appears  on  this  page.     This  creates  a    very 


24  SUKVEYOK  «iENEKAL'i<    KEl'OKT. 


stroni;  suspicion  of  fraud.  The  writing  stating  tlie  object  of 
the  king  risigmiture  u  on  the  preceding  page.  Tome  this  is 
very  conclusive  evidence  that  tnese  outside  sheets  may  at  some 
|)ast  lime  have  been  used  for  other  purposes,  for  certainly  the 
outside  sheets  of  so  important  a  document  should  have  noted 
the  name  of  the  grantee  and  his  title,  etc.  Nothinu^  of  the 
kind  appears,  but  on  the  contrary  they  might  be  today  attached 
to  other  interior  contents,  with  the  same  degree  of  propriety  that 
they  at  present  nestle  under  their  protecting  sheets,  such  sus- 
picious looking  documents  as  th  >se  relied  on  by  the  claimants 
to  the  Peralta  grant.  This  ommission  of  Peralta's  name  in 
the  title  on  these  outside  pages  is  no  ordinary  on»is.sion:  it  is 
a  mostextriordinary  defect.  In  ad(iition  the  ragged  and  un- 
intelligible writing  at  the  bottom  of  the  last  page,  claimed  to 
l>e  from  Santa  Ana,  adds  nothing  to  the  genuineness  of  this 
suspicious  page.  In  its  mutilated  condition  it  can  receive  no 
serious  attention  and  presents  no  evidence  of  being  genuine- 
tt  may  be  asserted  that  the  alleged  king's  signature  (Carlos 
III)  on  the  page  containg  the  alleged  order  of  the  King  FenK 
inand  VI  strengthens  the  genuine  appearance  of  the  document- 
To  this  I  would  answer  that  the  king's  signature  on  the  last 
page,  admitting  it  to  be  genuine,  for  the  sake  of  argument 
but  to  have  been  originally  used  for  some  other  purpose,  vvhich 
the  sheets  would  seem  to  indicate  was  the  case,  on  account  of 
the  absence  above  the  king's  signature  of  anything  appertain- 
ing to  Peralta,  would  furnish  the  very  means  to  aid  its  being 
succressfully  duplicated  on  the  page  containing  Ferdinand's 
cedula. 

A  paper  is  presented  to  this  office  from  Guadalajara  as  a 
certified  copy  of  papers  on  tile  at  Guadalajara,  found  there  by 
Reavis  in  the  face  of  the  assurance  by  President  8anta  Ana, 
in  his  alleged  letter  (filed  by  claimant  Reavis)  that  with  all 
the  facilities  as  prsideent  of  ihe  republic  he  could  not  find 
any  such  papers  iji  any  archives  of  the  republic,  and  Guada- 
lajara it  is  to  be  presumed  is  the  place  where  Santa  Ana  would 
have  given  careful  search.  The  records  at  Guadalajar  have 
been  loosely  kept,  only  a  small  portion  of    them  being  bound; 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  25 

the  balance  have  been  kept  for  a  long  period  of  time  in  boxes, 
easy  of  access,  and  easily  added  to  by  a  person  taking  the 
necessary  time  to  accomplish  such  an  object.  Binding  of  the 
records  was  going  on  in  1883  and  for  some  time  before,  and  as 
a  consequence  records  that  weie  loosely  scattered  in  1881-1882 
or  1883  might  be  found  in  a  bound  condition  a  year  or  so 
later.  The  Mexican  archives  were  so  loosely  protected  in 
Guadalajara  as  to  create  suspicion  where  papers  are  found  by 
a  foreigner  that  the  president  of  the  republic  himself  and  his 
machinery  ot  the  state  sought  in  vain  to  find.  Mr. R.  C.Hop. 
kins,  then  an  employee  of  the  Surveyor  Generals  office,  in  his 
report  about  the  Guadalajara  papers  says: 

"The  archives  in  Guadalajara  formerly  consisted  of  un- 
bound papers,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  books  bound  in 
parchment,  after  the  old  style  and,  like  the  archives  of  all 
Spanish  countries,  consisted  of  official  correspondence  and 
decrees,  civil  and  criminal  proceedings,  and  in  fact  of  all  such 
official  papers  as  would  naturally  be  produced  by  the  machins 
cry  of  such  governments  as  those  of  Spain  and  Mexico.  Th® 
greater  portion  of  these  miscellaneous  archives  have  within 
the  last  few  years  been  bound  for  preservation  by  the  state 
department  as  appropriations  have  been  from  time  to  time 
made  for  that  purpose,  and  in  one  of  these  volumes,  thus  bound 
within  the  past  two  years,  are  found  the  papers  in  relation  to 
the  Peralta  grant.  These  title  papers  show  folding  marks,  as 
do  many  others  in  the  books  referred  to.  Most  of  the  records 
of  archives  from  the  years  1740  to  1760  appear  to  have  been 
destroyed,  as  I  was  informed   by  the  archivero." 

Now  we  have  this  statement  of  Santa  Ana  that  the  papers 
could  not  be  found,  and  we  have  also  the  information  that 
most  of  the  records  between  1740  and  1760  were  destroyed, 
but  Keavis  produces  from  a  newly  bound  volume  that,  accord' 
ing  to  Mr.  Hopkins,  was  bound  in  1881,  the  copies  of  the 
papers  he  sought. 

Mr.  Hopkins  says  in  his  report:  "It  is  important  to 
ascertain,  if  possible,  if  these  title  papers  be  historically  con- 
sistent, that  is,  if  the  parties  whose  names  appear  therein   did 


._;(}  SUKVEYOK  UENEKAL'S  KEPORT. 


in  tact  exist,  and  if  they  occuiied  the  positions  as  stated  in 
the  papers  at  the  respective  dates  mentioned  *  H^  ^ 
*  *  *  Contemporaneous  history,  found  in  Ban- 
croft's library  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  California,  shows 
that  the  above  named  individuals  (referring  to  names  on  the 
papers)  were  living  and  acting  in  the  capacities  above  stated 
at  the  date  mentioned  in  the  report,  except  it  appears  that 
Father  Tameron,  is  mentioned  by  the  historian  as  bishop  of 
Durango,  New  Mexico,  at  the  time,  belongs  to  the  bishopric 
Durango." 

This  kind  of  an  investigation  amounts  to  next  to  noth- 
ing, as  what  was  accessible  to  a  man  examining  into  the 
matter  would  likewise  be  accessible  to  a  person  desirous  of 
making  up  a  perfect  record  to  formulate  grant  papers.  Ii> 
tact  to  secure  names  of  otiicials  contemporaneous  with  the 
grant  would  be  the  first  step  in  a  chain  of  fraud. 

Mr.  Hopkins  says:  ''The  original  grant  by  the  viceroy  not 
being  produced — his  signature  is  not  found  among  the  title 
papers.  In  1758  the  Marquis  de  las  Amarillas  filled  the  of- 
fice of  viceroy  of  New  Spain," 

Mr.  Hopkins  further  says  in  his  report:  "One  of  the 
paoers  found  in  the  government  archives  at  Guadalajara  is 
'Testimonio  Original'  This  paper  is  a  copy  of  the  decree  of 
Ferdinand  VI  recommending  the  grant.  This  testimonio 
(certified  copy)  is  authenticated  by  these  signatures  made  with 
rubricas  alone." 

Mr.  Hopkins  goes  on  to  say  that  rubricas  similar  to  those 
referred  to  above  are  found  on  other  papers  issued  contemper^ 
aneous  with  the  decree  of  Ferdinand  VI.  The  papers  filed  in 
this  office  from  Guadalajara  amount  to  this:  A  petition  by 
Reavis  dated  November  27th,  1883,  to  the  Second  General 
Court,  wherein  he  represents  himself  as  the  rightful  owner  of 
the  "Peralta  Hacienda'*  in  Arizona,  that  he  had  in  his  pos- 
session a  copy,  and  a  photograph  of  a  document,  and  a  map 
of  said  property,  which,  with  the  consent  of  the  governor  of 
that  state,  was  issued  to  hin\  in  1881.  (the  very  year  that 
Hopkins  says  the  book  containing  the  records  was  being  bound) 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  27 

by  the  persun  in  charge  of  the  archives  at  Guadalajara,  which 
show  a  concession  made  to  Don  Miguel  Peralta.  Petitioner 
then  prays  that  the  court  will  issue  the  necessary  order  to  the 
public  register  in  charge  of  the  records,  etc.,  directing  him  to 
issue  to  the  petitioner  a  "testimonio"  of  the  record.  The  above 
petition  shows  that  Reavis  was  in  communication  with  the  Ar- 
chivero  at  Guadalajara  in  1881  ivhen  the  important  act  of  bind- 
ing the  volume  within  ivhich  was  found  the  Peralta  papers  was 
being  accomplished. 

The  papers  produced  on  this  petition  is  a  certified  copy 
(which  petitioner  asserts  he  got  from  the  proper  officer)  of 
copies  of  the  alleged  originals  of  Ferdinand's  decree;  the  vice- 
roy's grant;  an  uncertain  description  of  the  locus  of  the 
grant;  a  will  of  Peralta  leaving  grant  to  his  son,  and  direct- 
ing him  to  go  and  take  possession.  This  certified  copy  of  the 
copies  of  the  several  papers  cited  immediately  above,  which 
said  copies  are  on  file  in  Guadalajara,  is  presented  to  this 
office  as  evidence,  and  I  am  asked  to  give  credit  to  a  paper  of 
this  character  found  in  a  volume  which  had  only  been  bound 
two  years  before  produced;  all  of  which  copies  were 
probably  filed  at  one  time,  and  by  one  man.  Nothing  is  of- 
fered among  the  papers  to  show  where  the  original  papers 
were  filed,  and  it  is  very  remarkable  that  the  original  Peralta 
himself  should  not  have  given  definite  information  about  the 
originals,  considering  the  great  anxiety  evidenced  in  his  alleg- 
ed will  to  have  his  son  inherit  his  large  donation  of  land. 

These  copies,  of  copies  would  not  make  competent  evidence 
in  any  court  and  are  not  admissable  for  serious  consideration 
in  this  case.  The  production  of  copies  taken  from  copies  has 
proven  the  remarkable  feature  in  this  case.  Copies  from 
originals  apparently  being  out  of  the  question. 

I  will  premise  my  consideration  of  the  next  paper  filed  in 
this  case,  by  stating  that  on  February  1st,  1884,  I  wrote  a 
request  to  the  Hon.  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  Madrid  ask^ 
ing  him  for  certified  copies  of  each  and  every  important  paper 
appertaining  in  any  way  to  the  alleged  Peralta  grant;  and 
thinking  that  a  request  transmitted  through  the  high  medium 


28         SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

of  the  stale  department  might  receive  better  attention  on  the 
part  of  tlie  Spani.-jl)  government,  tlian  one  from  this  office 
direct,  I  sent  an  additional  request  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  which  was  transmitted  through  the  state  department' 
.  with  photograpiis  etc.  furnisiied  by  me,  to  secure  a  full  and 
intelligent  examination  of  the  records  of  Madrid  and  Seville. 
I  al."i0  took  si  miliar  ste[)s  to  have  the  records  of  Mexico  care«» 
fully  searched.  In  response  to  these  repuests  on  May  2nd, 
1885  I  received  a  letter  from  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Otilce  containing  the  following:  "You  are  further  ad- 
vised that  this  department  has  received  from  the  department 
of  state  official  information  communicated  by  the  Spanish 
*:overnni('nt,  through  the  Anieiican  legation  at  Madrid,  that  a 
careful  search  has  been  made  by  the  Director  of  the  Archives 
and  that  the  so  called  Peralta  grant  does  not  exist  in  those 
archives." 

The  same  letter  says:  "Thorough  search  has  been  made 
under  the  direction  of  the  government  of  the  Republic  of 
Mexico  at  the  instance  of  this  government  and  no  record  of 
this  grant  nor  any  of  the  various  minute  proceedings  required 
by  the  laws  of  Spain  and  the  Indies  connected  with  the  making 
of  such  grants  has  been  discovered." 

Now  here  we  have  the  highest  possible  authority  from 
the  pn>j)er  sources,  that  nothing  whatever  could  be  found  in 
the  archives  where  such  papers  would  naturally  be  kept,  either 
in  Spain  or  Mexico.  These  communications  coming  to  the 
attention  of  the  claimant  Keavis,  it  is  alleged  he  went  toSpain 
and  again  succeeded,  as  he  (;laims,  in  finding  papers  of  alleged 
value  to  this  claim  in  the  archives  there,  and  when  he  next 
appeared  in  the  office  of  the  Surveyor  General  h-  filed  these 
papers  with  an  amended >'d  deraigument  of  title,  claiming  the 
title  for  his  wife  as  "Sofia  Lorkta  Mkaela  Maso  Reavis 
Peralta  de  la  CoRrxmA"  and  signs  himself  James  Addison 
Femlta  Reavis.  All  this  on  the  strength  of  the  papers  found 
i)y  Reavis  in  Spain,  after  the  positive  assurance  by  the  Spanish 
government  to  our  government  that  nt)  such  papers  could  be 
lound.     it  is  inipossible  for  us  to  set  aside  the  statement   of  a 


29 


government  and  accept  that  of  Reavis.  In  this  last  and  most 
remarkable  move  everything  appertaining  to  the  original  de- 
raignment  of  title  is  apparently  set  aside  by  the  new  claimant* 
the  wife  ofReavis,  without  Reavis  interfering  in  behalf  of  his 
orignal  claim  or  offering  anything  in  explanation  of  the  abandon 
ment  of  the  former,  and  the  adoption  of  the  last  filed  claim. 
The  latter  claim  is  made  in  a  matter  of  fact  way,  wholly  ig- 
noring Reavis  (except  as  the  husband  of  the  claimant)  and 
his  former  stupendous  efforts  to  deraign  title  direct  from  the 
old  Baron  to  himself.  The  claim  as  now  made  by  the  peti- 
tioners Reavis  and  wife,  that  the  wife,  the  said  "Sofia  Loreta 
Micaela  Maso  Reavis  de  la  Cordoba"  is  a  lineal  decendant, 
and  sole  heir  to  the  original  grantee  of  the  alleged  so  called 
"Peralta  Grant,"  being  the  great-grand-daughter  of  the  original 
Peralta,  and  that  she  is  entitled  to  the  alleged  grant  as  stated 
above.  This  petition  was  filed  in  the  Surveyor  General's  of- 
fice on  the  2nd  day  of  September,  1887.  They  also  file  a 
petition  for  a  preliminary  survey  of  the  grant,  and  a  map  of 
the  land  they  claim,  and  by  them  it  is  located  about  eight 
miles  south  of  the  former  claim  made  by  claimant  when  he 
was  simply  James  Addison  Reavis.  Contemporaneous  with 
the  filing  of  the  new  claim  to  this  colossal  property,  petition- 
ers file  photographic  copies  of  Spanish  documents,  will,  codi- 
cils, etc.,  which  photographic  copies  are  certified  as  true  copies 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  under  section  882  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  providins;  that  "Copies  of  any  books,  records, 
papers  or  documents  in  any  of  the  executive  departments, 
authenticated,  under  the  seals  of  such  department,  respectivel  y 
shall  be  admitted  in  evidence  equally  with  the  originals  there- 
of." This  section,  by  the  words  "originals  thereof,"  evidently 
means  the  papers  on  file  in  the  department  from  which  the 
copies  certified  to  as  the  copies  by  the  department  head,  have 
been  made;  not  necessarily  the  o.:iginal  title  papers  themselves, 
for  the  very  papers  filed  in  the  department  may  be,  and  very 
probably  are,  only  copies  brought  to  the  department  and  filed; 
from  which,  after  they  are  filed,  other  copies  may  be  made  and 
Certified  to  by  the  secretary  of  the  department  as  correct  copies 


30         SURVEYOR  GENKRAI/S  REPORT. 


of  the  papers  on  file  in  the  department,  be  they  copies  or 
eriginals.  To  give  any  other  meaning  would  make  the  depart- 
ment responsibla  as  giuiranteeing  that  copies  of  papers  filed 
in  the  department  were  correct  copies  of  bona  fide  orignals,  or 
tiie  originals  themselves,  and  that  gurely  was  never  intended 

To  give  weight  to  copies  produced  here  authenticated  as 
provided  for  in  the  section  referred  to,  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  Statute  contemplated  such  documents  as  are  properly 
on  file  in  the  department.  The  section  certainly  cannot  mean 
that  any  paper  may  be  placed  in  the  files  of  a  department* 
however  wrongfully  and  merely  upon  the  certification  that  a 
copy  given  to  some  one  is  a  correct  copy  of  the  paper  on  file 
in  the  dei)artment,  make  that  copy,  so  certified,  competent 
evidence.  Secretary  Muldrow,  in  certifying  to  the  copy  pro*- 
duced  in  the  Surveyor  General's  olfice  certifies  in  the  follow 
ing  language:  "Pursuant  to  section  882  of  the  Revised  Statutes' 
I  hereby  certify  that  the  annexed  is  a  true  copy  of  a  document 
on  file  in  this  department,  except  to  the  following  discrepan- 
cies." (Noting  them.)  In  no  way  does  this  certification  bear 
out  the  idea  that  Secretary  Muldrow  meant  to  convey  the  fact 
that  the  papers  were  originals,  or  of  any  import  as  bona  fide 
copies  of  originals.  He  simply  says  that  they  are  copies  of 
certain  papers  placed  on  file  in  the  department  adding  nothing 
whatever  of  their  history,  and  stll  these  papers  are  brought 
before  me  and  I  am  asked  to  give  them  weight  in  the  matter 
under  Consideration.  A  more  veritable  fjtrce  in  the  annals  of 
legal  investigation  was  never  enacted. 

This  office  was  the  proper  place  of  deposit  tor  any  papers 
the  claimants  wished  considered  in  connection  with  this  grant 
or  attached  any  importance  to.  The  other  papers  were  filed 
here  for  the  Careful  scrutiny  of  the  Surveyor  General.  Why 
was  such  a  marked  departure  observed  in  this  last  matter? 

The  papers  filed,  certified  as  shown  above,  consist  of  six 
photographs  made  in  Washington.  Nothing  appears  to  show 
that  any  originals  were  produced  to  take  the  photographs  from. 
No  evidence  is  produced  here  to  show  where  the  originals  are, 
or  haw  he  secured  the  copies. .   We  can    hardly    be   asked    to 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  31 

believe  that  a  toreign  private  citizen  could  secui*«  papers  that 
our  governuieut,  with  all  the  aid  of  the  government  machinery 
of  Spain,  found  no  trace  of.  It  is  asking  too  much  of  me  to 
give  credit  to  such  a  statement. 

The  photographs  are  alleged  to  represent  the  original 
cedula  of  Ferdinand  VI,  or  royal  patent.  A  will  of  the.  orig^ 
inal  grantee.  Another  will  of  the  younger  Peralta,  the  son  o^ 
'^he  original  grantee,  who  in  his  will,  lays  the  ground  work  for 
the  change  in  the  deraignment  of  title  that  has  occurred,  care- 
fully reciting  alleged  facts  that  will  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  that  part  of  the  report  that  treats  of  the  heirs,  etc. 
The  last  Peralta  also  recites  his  muniments  of  title  very 
minutely  and  speakfe  of  the  papers  he  refers  to  in  his  will  in 
regard  to  title  as  "authenticated  copies," 

During  my  previous  term  as  surveyor  general  it  w'as  often 
remarked  to  Reavis  that  under  even  the  most  favorable  cir- 
cumstances, for  instance,  the  production  of  the  viceroy's  grant* 
his  grant,  would  fail,  as  it  was  never  taken  possession  of. 
What  I  consider  as  one  of  the  most  marvelous  features  of  the 
last  filings  in  the  following  quotation,  alleged  to  have  been 
recited  in  the  last  will  of  Peralta,  the  son  of  the  grantee,  but 
on  no  occassion  by  the  grantee  himself,  viz:  "We  have  given 
possession,  in  the  name  of  his  majesty  the  King,  by  conmiand 
()f  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain.  Done  at  the  eastern  base 
of  the  aforesaid  Maricopa  mountain,  a«.f?  the  draiving  tiiade  on 
the  rock,  on  this  ISth  day  of  May,  in  the  yea?'  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  fifty-eight.^^ 

By  the  above  we  are  given  to  understand  that  Don 
Miguel  de  Peralta,  son  of  the  alleged  grantee,  recites  in  his  will 
in  minute  detail  copies  of  papers  to  show  the  giving  of  posses- 
sion to  the  property  alleged  to  have  been  granted ^lo  his  alleged 
father,  and  the  identifying  of  the  boundaries  by  a  map  on  the 
rock.  (The  describing  of  the  map  on  the  rock,  lam  confident, 
was  to  ciiange  the  boundaries  and  thus  avoid  the  vigorous 
fightihg  of  the  Arizona  Canal  Company.)  The  claimants  fail 
entirely  to  prove  any  connection  whatever  between  the  Peralia 


32  8UKVEYOK  general's  RBPOKT. 

making  the  will  in  which  the  above  passage  about  the  map 
and  possession  being  given  appears,  and  the  original  grantee; 
even  allowing  such  a  grant  was  ever  made  to  an  original 
Peralta;  or  any  connection  with  the  Peralta  at  Wickenberg, 
Arizona.  They  do  not  show  where  the  elder  Peralta  died, 
what  children  were  left,  or  why  we  should  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  latter  Peralta  who  so  considerately  recited  so  much 
in  his  will  to  favor  the  present  claim  of  claimants,  should  in 
any  way  ue  considered  as  the  son  of  Peralta  and  particularly 
as  his  only  favored  son. 

By  their  two  sets  of  claims  they  first  prove  that  the  son 
of  Peralta,  in  Arizona,  on  October  20th,  1864,  made  a  deed  to 
Willing,  and  then  claimant  Reavis  turns  around  and  proves, 
with  about  the  same  show  of  pr.>bability  and  equal  certainty, 
that  before  deeding  to  Willing  he  or  same  other  Peralta  also  claim 
ing  to  be  the  son  and  sole  heir,  attempted  to  make  other  dispo- 
sition of  the  property  on  the  2nd  day  of  January,  1863,  by  a 
will.  By  this  new  state  of  affairs  Reavis'  wife  would  cut  out 
hj  Sj.  L)ui?;  heirs  claiming  under  the  deed  to  Dr.  Willing, 
and  at  the  same  time  Reavis  renders  null  and  void  all  titles 
he  issues  while  claiming  under  the  same  deed  from  Peralta, 
the  alleged  son,  to  Dr.  Willing,  for  which  deeds  Reavis  is  said 
to  have  received  large  sums  of  money. 

Nothing  is  offered  by  claimants  to  harmonize  these  dis- 
crepancies about  the  Peraltas,  the  wills,  deeds,  codicils,  etc.  I 
am  simply  left  to  solve  the  proposition.  In  showing  the  fact 
that  the  grant  would  fail  for  the  want  of  possession  and  defi- 
nite location,  if  the  6th  article  of  the  treaty  of  December  30th, 
1853,  ceding  this  Territory  to  the  United  States  is  considered 
in  connection  with  this  grant,  which  provides  that  no  grants 
shall  "be  respected  or  be  considered  as  obligatory  which  have 
not  been  located  and  duly  recorded  in  the  archives  of  Mexico." 
I  have  shown  ample  reason  for  the  filing  of  the  remarkable 
historical  features  of  the  alleged  will,  said  to  be  the  will  of  the 
son  and  heir  of  the  grantee. 

Nothing  was  ever  said  by  claimants  under  the  original 
deraignment  of  title  that  Peralta,  the  son,  had  ever 

made  a  will,  and  now  that  it  is  produced,  and  nullifies  all  of  the 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  33 

early  deeds  of  Reavis  and  and  wipes  out  the  other  claimants 
altogether.  I  likewise  show  an  additional  incentative  for  its 
late  production,  which  1  believe  to  have  been  purely  an  after 
thought,  subsequent  entirely  to  the  papers  filed  in  1883  and 
claimed  at  the  time  as  originals. 

Even  after  the  execution  of  the  deed  to  Willing  by  Peralta, 
the  son,  on  October  20th,  1864,  the  copy  last  filed  and  referred 
to  above  as  containing  the  will  of  Peralta,  the  son,  makes 
Peralta  execute  a  codicil  on  the  9th  day  of  April,  1865, 
(which  would  be  after  the  Wickenberg  deed  to  Willing)  in  the 
city  of  Madrid  with  the  stated  sole  object  of  granting  unto  his 
aforesaid  grand-daughter.  Dona  Sophia  Loreta  Micaela  Maso 
y  Peralta  de  la  Cordoba,  the  permission  legally  necessary  to 
enable  her  to  take  possession  of  the  grant  made  to  his  father 
in  pursuance  of  the  command  of  his  majesty  the  King  of  Spain , 
to  his  aforesaid  grand-daughter  "Dona  Sophia  Loreta 
Macaela  Maso  y  Peralta  de  la  Cordoba,  may  go  and 
take  possession  thereof,  and  in  order  to  secure  compliance  with 
this  provision  I  have  appointed  as  her  guardian  the  aforesaid 
Don  Antonio  Pablo  Peralta." 

Reflect  on  this  in  the  light  of  the  same  Peralta  hav- 
ing executed  a  deed  to  Willing  in  October  1864,  as  originally 
claimed  by  Reavis.  The  object  of  this  codicil  is  to  place  the 
present  claimant  as  heir,  in  a  position  to  take  possession  of 
the  property,  that  no  (»ne  heretofore  has  ever  had  possession 
of,  so  all  important,  if  contemplated  in  connection  with  the 
treaty  of  DeceHd)er  30th,  1853.  It  will  be  noted  that  this  last 
will  was  produced  from  Madrid,  no  record  being  produced 
from  Guadalajara  where  the  record  had  been  bound  in  books 
apparently  before  the  necessity  for  this  will   was  discovered. 

To  my  mind  the  consideration  of  these  last  filed  papers 
go  t.)  show  against  the  plausibility  of  the  title  as  set  up  by  the 
wife  of  Reavis,  but  if,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  should 
admit  a  reasonable  appearance  of  validity  of  the  papers  claim- 
ed to  be  photographic  copies  of  originals,  I  should  still  report, 
adversely  on  the  grant,  as    nothing  whatever  of  a    reasonable 


34  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

nature  has  been  produced  in  this  office  to  show  that  the  vice- 
roy ever  made  a  grant  to  Peralta,  or  that  possession  was  ever 
taken  of  said  property  by  the  alleged  grantee. 

A  viceroy  was  an  officer  of  the  greatest  discretion  and 
responsibilities  and  acted  at  a  long  distance  from  the  court  he 
was  serving,  and  it  is  fair  to  presume  was  actuated  in  his  acts 
by  his  own  knowledge  as  to  the  situation  in  the  country  he 
was  appointed  to  govern.  This  must  necessarily  have  been 
the  case  (see  page  15,  section  28,  cedula  of  1754,  Hall's  Mex- 
ican Law).  Much  had  to  be  left  entirely  to  hi;*  discretion, 
and  the  king  treating  with  his  subjects  domiciled  in  the 
country  governed  by  the  viceroy,  necessitating  the  action  be- 
ing taken  through  the  viceroy,  as  a  medium,  would  naturally 
listen  to  any  reason  the  viceroy  might  have  tor  not  making 
the  grant,  or  not  performing  a  certain  act  and  would  himself 
be  governed  to  a  lar^e  extent  by  the  recommendation  of  the 
viceroy  pro  or  con.  The  very  language  of  the  king  in  his 
alleged  cedula  recommending  the  grant  to  Peralta  is  "I,  the 
Kin^:  of  Spain,  by  this  public  order,  and  decree,  in  conformity 
with  the  custom  of  the  Crown,  recommend  to  the  most  excel- 
lent Viceroy  of  New  Spain."  etc. 

Now  there  is  the  plain  language  of  the  king  (if  we  accept 
as  valid  his  cedula)  that  he  only  recommends  the  grant  to  the 
viceroy,  leaving  it  wholly  and  entirely  within  the  discretion 
of  the  viceroy  to  make  it  or  not  as  would  be  natural  under  the 
circumstances.  Did  the  viceroy  make  a  grant,  or  did  he 
notify  his  king  that  it  was  impracticable?  We  are  left  in 
ignorance  in  the  premises.  Now  the  claimants  allege  the 
viceroy  waited  ten  years  and  then  made  the  grant.  This  would 
only  go  to  show  what  power  he  had  in  the  premises;  how  com- 
pletely he  was  master  of  the  situation,  and  the  great  discretion 
he  was  allowec^  to  exercise  by  the  crown  ov^r  matters  within 
hi^  own  province.  He  c>)uld  even  allow  the  king's  recommen- 
dation to  remain  unacted  upon  for  ten  years.  This  claim  that 
he  delayed  action  for  ten  years  after  the  king's  recommendation 
demonstrates  the  greater  necessity  of   the    production    of  his 


35 

grant  to  show  that  he  ever  made  ajrrantthat  was  only  "recnm- 
mended"  to  him  by  the  king. 

There  are  some  old  .books  ot  records  of  the  old  missi<»n 
known  as  the  San  Xavier  church  at  present  in  the  possession 
of  one  R.  T.  Hunter,  at  \Vashington  City,  and  saii  to  have 
been  loaned  him  originally  by  Bishop  Salpointe  then  in  con- 
trol ot  the  San  Xavier  Mission.  These  books  should  have 
been  returned  to  the  proper  resting  place  long  ere  this,  as  they 
are  of  great  importance  to  many  families  living  in  southern 
Arizona.  The  claimant  Reavis,  I  presume,  in  corroboration  of 
the  ancgati()ns  that  the  church  and  inquisition  were  lookir.<:- 
after  Peralta,  had  some  photographs  taken  in  Washington  c* 
what  purports  to  be  the  sheets  of  these  old  books,  and  filed  thr^ 
photographs  in  this  office.  The  filing  of  these  photographs  ar? 
evidence  in  this  case  I  consider  as  fatal  management  on  the 
part  of  claimants.  The  photographs  filed,  purport  to  show 
that  a  copy  of  Peralta's  will  and  the  viceroy's  grant,  was 
among  the  leaves  of  the  old  mission  books.  To  my  mind  the 
production  of  these  photographs  of  supposed  copies,  show»to 
what  straits  the  claimants  were  driven  to  obtain  corroborating 
evidence  that  the  viceroy  ever  made  the  grant.  It  is  evident 
the  claimants  intention  to  jump  up  from  every  conceivable 
corner  something  touching  on  the  fact  that  the  viceroy  did 
make  the  grant,  but  it  seems  in  poor  taste  that  the  old  books 
of  the  San  Xavier  Mission,  wherein  were  recorded  the  births, 
marriages  and  deaths  of  persons  under  the  cognizance  of  the 
church,  should  be  selected  to  have  inserted  and  rudely  inserted 
among  its  withered  leaves  a  copy  of  the  grant  of  Peralta 
by  the  viceroy,  and  acopy  of  Peralta's  will.  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  these  books  have  been  out  of  the  custody  of  the 
church  for  many  years,  and  that  we  know  very  little  as  to  their 
history  in  that  time.  The  photographs  produced  show  that  what 
appears  to  be  the  regular  pages  of  the  old  book  bear  every 
indication  of  age,  the  writing  is  done  with  a  quill  pen,  the 
sheets  are  regular  in  shape  and  size  and  present  an  even  ap- 
pearance in  matter  of  age,  handwriting,etc.,  with  the  exception 


36  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

of  tlie  very  sheet  that  the  claimant  Reavis  relies  so  much  on. 
Here  we  have  a  radical  change,  a  complete  departure  of 
perspective.  In  the  first  place  th& sheet  is  pasted  in  at  right 
angles  to  the  other  siieets  and  is  onesthird  larger 
than  the  regular  sheets.  The  upper  end  '  of  the  pasted 
in  sheet  is  inserted  in  that  part  of  the  binding 
that  holds  the  back  of  the  large  book  together,  instead 
of  being  in  regular  order,  nor  is  this  the  only  singularity 
about  it.  The  writing,  ink  and  paper  is  different  from  the 
reaular  leaves  of  the  book,  the  entries  proper  being  in  a  regu- 
lar hand,  written  with  a  quill  pen,  and  the  sheets  proper  bear 
an  appearance  of  having  been  written  about  the  same  time, 
while  the  sheet  pasted  in,  I  unhesitatingly  pronounce  written 
with  a  steel  pen,  which  would,  of  course,  have  been  impossible 
jf  the  sheet  was  pasted  in  there  at  the  time  it  was  made  to  ap- 
pear as  the  date  was  fully  half  a  century  before  steel  pens 
were  made  at  all  successful.  I  am  firmly  convincejl  that  the 
sheet  referred  to  was  pasted  in  at  a  comparatively  recent  date. 
Ifr  is  too  apparent  to  admit  of  doubt  and  it  plays  a  sufficiently 
important  feature  in  this  case  to  account  for  a  necessity  for  its 
appearing  somewhere  in  ancient  archives,  though  a  most  inap- 
propriate resting  place  is  claimed  for  the  paper.  The  com- 
mittees in  Congress  can  easily  cause  the  books  now  in  the 
possession  of  R.  J.  Hunter  to  be  brought  before  them  for 
examination  as  to  the  correctness  of  my  conclusion,  as  Mr. 
Hunter,  their  present  custodian,  is  a  resident  of  Washington. 
This  can  be  done  without  expense.  Mr,  Hunter  offered  his 
services  to  show  up  this  fraudulent  grant,  if  paid  by  the  gov-* 
ernment,  but  inasmuch  as  the  Peralta  claim  is  without  any 
merits  whatever,  little  or  nothing  would  be  gained  by  paying 
for  information  that  the  congressional  committee  can  so  easily 
obtain  without  expense. 

Herewith  is  published  a  letter  from  C.  M.  Bell,  the  pho- 
tographer in  Washingion,  to  the  effect  that  Reavis  bought 
from  him  (Bell)  the  negatives  from  which  these  photographs 
of  the  San  Xavier  Mission  were   taken.     It  is  to  be  presumed 


SURVEYOR  general's    REPORT.  37 

from  this  act  that  the  claimant  was  not  desirous  of   perpetuat- 
ing tliese  telltale  records. 

Herewith  is  an  affidavit  €)f  Mr.  Frank  C.  Hise,  chief  clerk 
of  the  office  of  the  surveyor  general,  setting  forth  the  fact  that 
Reavis  was  in  possession  of,  and  exhihite.t  to  him  a  metal  seal, 
which  Reavis  boldly  claimed  was  the  offic'al  seal  of  the  Span- 
ish king,  and  that  tiie  Spanish  government  had  entrusted  this 
seal  to  him  under  heavy  bonds  for  its  return.  Was  ever  a 
more  preposterous  claim  submitted  for  serious  consideration? 
The  idea  that  such  an  occurrence  took  place  is  ridiculous,  and 
entitled  to  no  serious  consideration,  except  to  show  thataccord- 
ing  to  the  allegations  of  Reavis  himself,  he  was  in  a  position 
to  attach  the  king's  seal  to  any  paper  that  might  be  useful  to 
him.  The  photographs  filed  in  this  office  of  what  Reavis 
claimed  to  be  originals  in  Spain  and  filed  in  support  of  the 
claim  of  the  wife  of  Reavis,  show  as  the  most  prominent 
feature,  the  king's  seal;  and  Mr.  Reavis  exhibts  said  seal,  which 
while  in  his  possession,  he  could  use  ad  libitum,  and  could 
easily  produce  just  such  papers  as  his  photographs  purport  to 
be  made  from.  It  seems  to  me  that  Reavis  in  producing  this 
metal  seal,  and  his  statements  accounting  for  his  being  inpos- 
se.«sson  of  it,  is  one  of  the  worst  features  in  this  miserablv  got- 
ten up  land,  claim.  Even  if  the  seal  ne  genuine  and  the 
Spanish  government  did  allow  Reavis  to  have  it,  as  he  alleges, 
we  can  readily  see  that  it  might  be  used  for  fabricating  papers 
and  possibly  avoid  the  detection  of  the  fabrication  of  the 
papers  better  than  the  finest  counterfeit  seal  could,  as  its 
impress  would  be  perfect.  Regarding  the  matter  in  either 
light,  it  is  a  dangerous  instrument  to  be  at  large,  and  should 
have  been  kept  in  Spain,  if  genuine,  and  if  a  forgery  should 
not  be  in  Reavis'  possession.  The  allegations  of  Reavis  in 
connection  with  this  seal  absolutely  unsupported  by  corobora- 
tive  evidence  are  too  monstrous  for  the  credulity  of  parties 
having  jurisdiction  over  private  land  grants. 

Forgery,    (Massol  Deed). 

In  the    original   deiaignment  of  title    from    tha    original 


HR  SURVEYOR  GENERAT/S  REPORT. 


grantee  to  James  Addison  Reavis,  it  will  be  remembered  w»« 
a  deed  alleged  to  have  been  executed  by  F.  A.  Massol,  »« 
attorney  of  George M.  Willing,  to  James  Addison  Reavis.  The 
Massol  affidavits  herewith  show  this  deed  to  be  a  deliberate 
forgery.  I  became  convinced  of  this  from  the  appearance  of 
the  face  of  the  deed,  and  during  my  former  term  as  Surveyor 
General,  I  learned  Mr.  Massol's  address  by  correspondence, 
and  would  have  obtained  conclusive  evidence  of  the  forgery 
had  not  my  term  of  office  been  curtaile<f  by  the  appointment 
of  a  successor.  I  am  satisfied  that  it  was  asceriained  by  the 
claimant  that  I  had  located  Mr.  Massol,  and  it  was  probably 
understood  what  my  object  was  in  finding  him.  After  I  had 
found  Mr.  Massol  and  was  in  the  way  of  securing  the  infor- 
mation I  wanted,  the  claimant  Reavis  disappeared.  When 
he  again  appeared  at  this  office  he  said  he  had  spent  the 
intervening  time  in  Madrid,  and  he  presented  the  entirely  new 
chain  of  title  in  his  wife,  and  without  showing  any  particular 
reason  why,  he  abandoned  the  chain  of  title  in  himself,  wherein 
occurred  the  forged  Massol  deed.  This  deed  was  originally  a 
bona  fide  deed  for  some  mining  claims  excuted  by  F,  A.  Massol 
as  attorney  for  Willing,  bur.  to  some  other  grantee  than  Reavis, 
and  all  the  blank  portion  of  the  deed  had  been  carefully  red- 
lined.  In  a  different  colored  ink  from  that  used  in  writing 
the  body  of  the  deed  and  in  a  different  hand  writing,  Reavis 
was  made  grantee,  and  after  the  blank  space  had  been  used  to 
convey  several  mines,  the  blank  space  not  used  h*ad  been  red- 
lined,  showing  conclusively  that  nothing  but  the  mining  claims 
was  to  pass  by  the  deed;  then  down  below,  in  the  middle  of  the 
printed  matter,  in  the  same  handwriting  and  ink  used  in  mak- 
ing Reavi'-  the  grantee  in  the  deed,  this  great  landed  estate 
was  supposed  to  have  passed  from  \Villing  to  Reavis  through 
the  medium  of  F.  A.  Massol  as  attorney,  and  still  several  years 
later  Willing  himself  put  papers  on  file  in  Prescott  showing 
title  in  himself.  I  do  not  show  this  forgery  in  connection  with 
the  latest  claim  that  the  man  Reavis  makes  through  his  wife, 
but  to  show  what  means  has  been  resorted  to  in  this  case  to 
fraudulently  wrest  from    the  domain  of  the    United    States  an 


StJKVEYOK  general's    REPORT.  39 

estate  laige  enough  to  prove  a  satisfactory  principality    to  the 
ordinary  European  potentate. 

When  Mr.  Massol  learned  ot  the  existence  of  this  fraudir 
lent  de3 1  he  a3t3  1  with  the  greatest  promptness  in  repudiating  it 

The  Grantingf  of  Minerals. 

One  of  the  most  suspicious  features  of  this  alleged  grant 
is,  that  it  passed  absolute  title  to  all  the  minerals  on  the 
property. 

That  this  was  regarded  as  an  extraordinary  feature  is,  to 
my  mind,  conclusively  shown  by  the  alleged  letter  of  Peralta 
to  the  king,  Carlos  III,  asking  him  to  confirm  the  grant,  with 
the  minerals.  When  we  consider  that  this  confirmation  was 
wholly  unnecessary  at  law  and  that  the  original  grant  was  made 
to  give  all  minerals,  J  cannot  but  infer  that  the  alleged  letter 
from  Peralta  to  the  king  asking  confirmation,  was  a  cunningly 
devised  plan  by  some  interested  party  to  make  up  the  fatal 
defect  of  the  absence  of  the  viceroy's  grant  by  showing  that 
Carlos  III  confirmed  the  grant  papers  submitted  to  him  by 
Peralta  and  thus  made  a  grant,  whether  the  viceroy  had  made 
a  grant  or  not.  While  this  may  be  an  ingenious  mode  of  per- 
fecting title,  it  has  legal  defects  that  would  be  fatal  to  -uch  a 
claim. 

The  course  observed  by  the  Spanish  monarch  in  regard 
to  mineral  lands  does  not  admit  of  belief  that  he  relinquished 
all  minerals  in  such  a  vast  territory,  covering  what  was  then 
known  to  be  a   rich  mineral  country. 

Legal  Claimants, 

I  maintain  that  there  are  no  legal  claimants.  No  com- 
petent evidence  to  prove  that  heirs  or  legal  claimants  exist, 
has  ever  been  filed  in  this  otfice.  Under  the  original  papers 
filed  in  this  office  in  1883,  by  Reavis,  by  which  papers  he 
claimed  title  in  himself  as  plain  "James  Addison  Reavis,"  his 
claim  was  that  the  original  grantee  was  in  the  year  1748  so 
well  and  favorably  known  in  Spain,  and  to  the  king  of  Spain 


40  SUKVEYOK  general's  REPORT 


that  he  was  selected  by  the  monarch,  Ferdinand  YI,  to  be 
ninde  a  grandee  of  Spain,  and  to  have  conferred  on  him  one 
of  the  largest  estates  in  the  world,  certainly  the  largest  in  the 
United  States.  It  would  naturally  be  inferred  that  Peralta 
wns  a  man  of  high  station  in  New  Spain,  and  should  have 
been  a  very  prominent  historical  character.  It  was  especially 
recited  in  the  original  cedula  of  Ferdinand  VI  that  this  great 
grant  was  in  recompense  for  valiant  services  in  war.  When 
we  consider  the  importance  of  the  grant,  the  title  of  Baron  of 
the  Colorados,  and  the  high  reputation  the  alleged  Baron  had 
as  a  soldier  (as  established  in  the  cedula)  it  would  be  absos 
lutely  essential  that  Peralta  should  be  a  historical  character,  and 
that  the  death  of  so  prominent  a  man  should  be  noticed,  but 
history  i'^  strangely  silent  on  this  >»ubject, and  nothing  is  estab" 
lished  regarding  the  members  ot  his  family. 

Bancroft's  "Arizona  and  New  Mexico,"  just  published,  on 
pages  898  and  399  publishes  an  account  of  the  Peralta  claim, 
and  deraigns  the  title  to  Reavis  through  Willing;  which  title 
Reavis  now  entirely  repudiates,  though  Reavis  was  claiming 
its  validity  actively  enough  at  the  time  Bancroft's  volume  on 
Arizona  and  New  Mexico  was  being  compiled.  Bancroft 
closes  his  account  as  follows:  "In  a  sense  the  title  is  plausible 
enough  on  its  face;  but  it  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  annals 
of  the  province,  as  recorded,  contain  no  allusion  to  Peralta,  to 
the  Caballero  de  los  Colorados,  or  to  the  Caudal   de  Hidalgo." 

Considering  the  vast  production  of  papers  from  archives 
by  Reavis,  I  can  only  reconcile  Mr.  Bancroft's  statement  on 
the  ground  that  he  is  a  })ioneer  investigator  and  like  President 
Santa  Ana,  the  Mexican  authorities,  and  the  Spanish  authori- 
ties,  must  have  visited  the  archives  before  Reavis  had  been 
there,  which  may  account  for  Mr.  Bancroft's  failure  to  find  the 
records. 

To  say  the  least  with  such  a  record  he  must  have  been  a 
man  in  middle  life  which  would  date  his  birth  somewhere 
about  the  year  1700.  In  the  natural  course  of  events  his 
children  would  have  been  born  before  1760,  and  still  Reavis 
tells  us  in  the  papers  that  he  originally  filed,  that  the   son   of 


SURVKYOK  OENEHAL's  REPORT.  41 

the  grantee  was  in  the  little  town  of  Wickenberg,  Arizona,  in 
1864,  where  he  deeded  to  Willing,  and  for  aught  that  is  proved 
to  the  contrary,  may  still  be  living.  This  state  »f  affairs  is 
highly  improbable,  if  not  utterly  impossible.  If  we  suppose 
the  Peralta  at  Wickenberg  making  the  deed  to  Willing  in 
1864  was  eighty  years  at  the  time  of  said  deeding,  his  father 
at  the  time  i»f  his  birth  was  certainly  in  the  neighborhood  of 
eighty  years  of  age,  and  in  the  natural  order  of  things  as  they 
exist  in  ninety  per  cent  of  cases  his  mother  must  have  been 
seventy-five  years  of  age  at  this  important  epoch  in  the  Peralta 
family  history.  The  Lic'c,  howaver,  to  sitista^tjrily  prove  any 
relationship  between  Peralta  at  Wickenberg  and  the  old  Baron 
of  the  Colorados,  settles  the  question  oi  title  in  th^s  direction, 
and  completely  disposes  of  those  claiming  under  the  deed  from 
the  Wickenberg  Peralta.  California  and  Arizona  have  many 
Peraltas.  It  is  a  common  name  and  very  full  evidence  would 
be  rciquired  to  prove  a  connection  between  a  Peralta  in  Arizona 
and  the  alleged  baron. 

The  claimant  under  the  new  deraignment  of  title  is  tht 
wife  of  "James  Addison  Peralta  Reavis."  She  claims  as  a 
lineal  descendant  of  the  grantee,  but  the  claim  is  vague,  and 
not  established,  even  by  the  papers  filed;  which  would  be 
thrown  out  by  any  court  as  unsatisfactory,  Her  case  has  the 
same  remarkable  feature  of  longevity  evidenced  in  tracing 
the  descent  through  the  Peralta  at  Wickenberg  as  we  are  given 
actual  dates.  Tha  original  grantes  in  his  will  as  produced  by 
copy  from  Madrid  is  made  to  say  under  date  1783  that  he  is 
'seventy-five  years  of  age,  married  to  Djna  Sophia  Ave  Maria 
Sanchez,  now  residing  in  Gaudalajara  *  ;fc  ^  j 
declare  that  by  my  marriage  with  the  aforesaid  Djna  Sophia 
Ave  Maria  Sanchez  we  have  had  one  son  who  is  called  Miguel 
Peralta  de  la  Cordoba  y  Sanchez  and  who  is  two  years  of  age 
or  thereabouts." 

The  age  of  the  mother  so  all  important  in  considering 
this  case  is  left  to 'the  imagination.  No  papers  are  produced 
to  prove  the  date  of  her  birth,  but  when  we  are  told    that    her 


42  SURVEYOR  GENEKAL'S  KEFORT 

husband  is  seventy-five  old  by  his  own  confession,  and  with 
nothing  to  prove  an  extraordinary  difference  in  their  ages,  I 
must  naturally  infer  that  she  was  seventy  years  old,  or  there- 
abouts, at  the  birth  of  this  child;  this  is  a  natural  conclusion. 
Now  if  the  Peralta  making  the  second  will  defining  so  par- 
ticularly the  ''monumental  rock,"  and  the  giving  of  posses- 
sion, and  who  made  the  codicil  in  Madrid  in  1865,  be  the 
little  two  year  old  boy  in  1783,  he  was  84  years  old,  at  the 
time  of  making  the  codicil,  immediately  after  which  he  died, 
as  the  papers  filed  show.  Satisfactory  evidence  i*lentifying 
the  Peralta  making  the  second  will  with  the  two  year  old 
bab«j  of  the  alleged  grantee  is  not  produced,  and  the  entire 
line  down  to  the  present  claimant,  is  unsatisfactory,  the  whole 
practical  record  of  the  lineage  appearing  in  the  copy  of  the 
authenticated  copy  of  the  will  of  an  alleged  Peralta,  claiming 
to  be  the  grandfather  of  the  present  claimant,  but  failing  to 
show  in  any  trustworthy  way  that  he  was  the  direct  heir  of 
the  grantee,  or  that  he  was  the  same  Peralta,  who  about  the 
same  time  was  deeding  the  entire  Peralta  grant  away  in 
Wickenberg  for  the  paltry  sum  of  One  Thousand  dollars,  al- 
though at  that  timei(1864)  Arizona  was  being  settled  up,  and 
the  value  of  a  great  estate,  like  the  one  under  consideration 
must  have  become  apparent.  If  these  two  Peraltas,  the  one 
making  a  will  in  1863,  and  a  codicil  at  Madrid  in  1865  will- 
ing away  all  thii  property;  the  other  executing  a  deed  at 
Wickenberg,  Arizona,  in  1864,  deeding  t»>way  all  this  proper- 
ty are  one  and  the  same  maii,  then  which  one,  if  either,  is  the 
legal  heir?  And  how  can  the  question  be  settled  without  a 
complete  chain  of  evidence?  If  they  are  one  and  the  same 
person,  how  can  the  acts  of  willing  away  the  property  at  Ma- 
drid, and  deeding  away  the  property  &t  Wickenberg  to  differ- 
ent persons  be  reconciled?  If  it  was  shown  that  they  were 
one  and  the  same  person,  and  CHoable  of  doing  so  rascally  an 
act  a*  providing  in  a  codicil  to  his  will,  to  give  possession  of 
the  Peralta  Grant  to  his  grandaughter,  the  present  claimant, 
when  he  had  a  year  before  at    Wickenberg  deeded    the   estate 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.         43 

to  Dr.  Willing  lor  $1000,  would  he  not  be  scoundrel  enough 
t«  personate  the  son  of  the  grantee,  and  forge  his  name?  And 
if  claimant  Reavis  alleges  these  apparently  two  Peralta's  as 
one  and  the  same  person,  and  the  son  of  the  old  Baron,  then 
his  wife  would  fare  poor  as  heir,  inasmuch  as  his  deeding 
away  the  grant  to  Dr.  Willing,  a  >ear  before  the  date  of  the 
codicil  would  deprive  him  of  leaving  to  her  the  estate  already 
3©ld.  The  claimants  dare  not  allege  the  identity  of  the  two 
men,  and  they  cannot  prove  that  either  is  heir.  The  wife  ot 
Reavis  is  claiming  under  a  Peralta's  will  and  codicil  made  at 
Sau  Francisco  and  Madrid  respectively  in  1863  and  1865;  and 
the  legal  representatives  of  Dr.  Willing  are  claiming  under 
the  deed  of  1864,  executed  to  Di.  Willing  by  a  Peralta  at 
Wickenberg.  Nothing  entitled  to  consideration  to  prove 
•ither  title  is  on  file. 

Boundaries  and  Possession. 

The  only  papers  on  file  in  this  case,  to  show  even  ap- 
proximate location  of  this  grant,  are  certified  copies  of  authen* 
ticated  copies  of  the   supposed  originals  not  locatable. 

None  of  the  papers  in  the  form  submitted  to  me  as  evi- 
dence, are  entitled  to  be  treated  as  evidence,  or  worthy  of 
credence.  Alleged  copies  and  photographs  of  crude  pen  drawn 
maps,  without  having  been  made  from  surveys,  or  having  es- 
tablished lines  or  corners  or  alleged  measurements  on  the 
ground,  as  was  customary  in  giving  possession  of  grants  un 
der  the  Spanish  and  Mexican  laws,  are  not  entitled  to  serious 
consideration  in  connection  with  showing  the  location  of  the 
grant. 

This  is  particularly  the  case  where  possession  was  never 
taken,  nor  a  reasonable  claim  as  to  boundary  lines  ever  es- 
tablished on  the  ground. 

In  the  middle  of  the  last  century  "Pimeria  Alta"  was 
over  run  by  apache  Indians.  The  apaches  were  always  a 
warlike,  murderous  race  of  Indians,  and  the  whites  dreaded 
them  from  time  immemorial,  and  very  carefully  avoided  them 
These  Hre  indisputable  facts,  although  Peralta,  the    grantee,  is 


44  SURVEYOR  GENERAI/S    REPORT. 

made  to  make  a  rough  drawing  of  19,200,000,000  square 
varas  of  land  claimed  by  him^  no  claim  is  made  that  a  sur- 
vey ever  occurred,  and  it  i*  a  fact,  that  possession  was  never 
given  Peraltji  in  the  customary  way  which  has  prevailed  in 
Spain  and  Mexico  for  the  greater  part  of  the  past  century,  and 
is  so  essential  in  defining  boundaries,  and  locating  land,  enab- 
ling the  grail  tee  to  comply  with  the  law  requiring  perfect  re- 
cords of  all  proceedings  in  connection  with  the  grant,  and  its 
location. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  grantee,  Peralta  "established  th© 
western  frontier  line  thereof,  running  from  north  to  south  to 
the  basin  of  the  Maricopa  mountain;  to  the  east  of  the  Sierra 
Estrella  in  a  direct  line  to  the  west  of  the  mouth  of  the  valley 
of  the  Santa  Cruz,  crossing  the  river  Gila  and  the  Salt  river, 
and  in  conformity  with  the  concession  of  the  viceroy  of  New 
Spain,  granted  under  the  decree  published  by  order  of  his 
majesty,  the  King  of  Spain,  I  send  with  this  an  eastern  per- 
gpectiv^e  (map)    of  the  tract  as  described." 

This  mode  of  allowing  the  grantee  to  locate  himself  in 
the  manner  suggested,  would  have  been  a  radical  departure  in 
the  usual  proceedings  attending  the  location  of  Spanish  Grants* 
Such  a  line  might  be  located  anywhere  within  a  territory  of  a 
(lozen  miles  in  width,  even  allowing  that  such  a  mountain  as 
the  Maricopa  mountain  was  known  and  so  designated  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  ago.  This  line  itself  would  show  a  de- 
gree of  uncertainty  that  would  invalidate  a  bona  fide  grant 
for  lack  of  proper  designation. 

The  affidavit  of  Mr.  Monihon  herewith,  details  a  conver- 
sation, had  both  with  Dr.  Willing  as  to  the  location  of  the, 
grant,  and  also  a  later  conversation  had  with  Mr.  Reavis.  It 
shows  to  a  remarkable  degree,  that  they  were  then  claiming 
this  grant  as  a  "floater"  and  were  looking  around  for  a  most 
desirable  spot  for  its  anchoring.  In  corroboration  of  Mr. 
Monihon's  affidavit,  and  to  show  the  extreme  absurdity  of  un- 
dertaking to  positively  claim  any  established,   or  well   defined 


SURVEYOR  ^ENKRAL'S    REPORT.  45?; 

boundary  line,  it  will  be  remembered  tliut  ReAvis  originally 
claimed  a  certain  hill  or  hills  near  the  line  of  the  Phoenix  and 
Maricopa  railroad,  as  being  the  Maricopa  mountain  Peralta 
described  in  1788.  Keav  is  claimed  that  he  was  positive  of 
these  then. selected  locations  being  identically  the  same  spot 
described  by  the  original  Peraita;  and  he  rested  his  whole  • 
claim  us  to  the  western  boundary  on  this  mountain,  and  his 
claim  to  the  other  boundaries  was  dependent  on  this  western 
boundary  as  established  by  him.  No  hieroglyphics  on  the 
rocks  figure  1  in  tills  location;  no  such  remarkable  coinci- 
dence was  ever  eUiimed,  as  a  map,  one  hundred  years  old, 
drawn  on  a  barren  rock,  which  had  fallen  from  its  original 
resting  place;  but  with  the  ordinary  fatality  accompanying 
the  remarkable  muniments  of  title  in  this  case,  finally  landed, 
map  side  up,,  at  the  foot  of  the  hill. 

Later  on,  however,  Reavis  discovered,  through  some 
means  presumably  satisfactory  to  himself,  that  the  initial 
monument  was  eight  miles  south  of  the  spot  originally  claimed 
by  him.  The  floating  quality  of  this  grant,  as  evidenced  in 
this  change,  is  accounted  for  in  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Monihon. 
This  change  was  made  by  Keavis  contemporaneously  with 
the  filing  of  the  claim  of  his  wife.  Reavis  positively  asserts  to 
day,  thaD  a  large  rock  overed  with  Indian  hieroglyghtcs,  or 
especially  marked  for  the  purpose  of  this  grant,  is  the  initial 
point;  and  that  the  tracings  on  the  rock  referred  to,  form  a 
map  of  the  grant.  This  state  of  affairs,  it  will  be  remembered, 
was  carefully  laid  out  by  the  will  of  Pcralca,  the  alleged  son 
of  the  original  grantee,  in  the  codicil  the  said  son  is  alleged 
to  have  executed  in  Madrid,  although  no  record  of  this  will 
or  codicil  is  produced  from  the  proper  archives  in  the  United 
States,  where  the  property  is  located. 

How  Peralta,  the  son,  found  out  so  much  of  his  father's 
doings  in  connection  with  this  grant,  that  his  father  (the  orig- 
inal grantee)  apparently  did  not    know,  is  veiled  in  mystery, 

It  is  my  opinion  that  thisiConveient  will  and  codicil  sup- 
plying so  many  legal  deficiencies  was  produced  for  the  purpo.^e 


46.  SUKVEYOK  GEJSEKAf.'S    KEPUKT 

of  floating  the  initial  point  to  a  spot  eight  miles  south  of  its  prior 
establishment  to  avoid  includin:i  the  property  of  the  Arizona 
Canal  Company,  a  rich  and  powerful  corporation.  (See  Mon- 
ihon's  affi  lavit)  which  acc;)rdin'x  to  the  ori';^inal  location  was 
included  in  the  claimed  boundaries  of  the  grant.  By  shifting  the 
initial  point,  the  greater  part  of  the  company's  property  is  out- 
side of  the  boundaries,  but  the  loss  to  tiie  claimant  of  this 
valuable  property  is  more  than  made  up  by  including  the  Gila 
valley  in  the  neighborhood  ot  Solomonville.  That  Reavis 
appreciated  thoroughly  the  value  of  the  |)roperty  added  is 
shown  by  the  affidavits  of  Mr.  Manning  and  Mr.  Hise,  here- 
with. This  act  in  itself  shows  that  Reavis  is  today,  bv  liis  own 
actions,  eight  miles  out  in  his  boundaries,  or  was  under  his 
original  claim.  If  anything  could  have  been  added  to  show 
the  uncertainty  as  to  the  boundaries,  this  act  of  Reavis'  has 
completed  the  showing. 

The  identifying  of  the  rock  with  the  hieroglyphics  as  the 
correct  initial  monument,  and  which  was  never  in  any  way 
referred  toby  the  original  grantee,  is  farcical.  Even  if  weal- 
low  that  any  markings  on  the  rock  was  not  of  modern  origin, 
it  is  nothing  more  than  the  ordinary  Indian  hieroglyphics 
found  on  the  rocks  all  over  Southern  Arizona.  I  have  visited 
and  personally  inspected  many  localities  where  they  occur, 
and  have  seen  the  photographs  filed  by  Reavis  of  the  alleged 
map  on  the  rock.  It  is  wholly  unworthy  of  serious  considera. 
tion  and  could  only  be  entitled  to  be  considered  a  monument 
of  this  grant  if  corroborative  evidence  was  filed  here  showing 
that  possession  was  given  the  original  grantee,  and  that  this 
identical  rock  was  selected  as  a  boundary  monument,  and 
marked  according  to  the  allegation  of  the  codicil  produced 
here  by  Reavis. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  in  connection  with  this  change 
and  the  adoption  of  this  rock  as  a  monument,  that  Peralta 
the  alleged  son  and  heir  who  made  the  deed  to  Dr.  Willing  at 
Wickenberg,  Arizona,  said  nothing  about  any  such  rock.  If 
Reavia  claims  that  the  Peralta  who  made  the  deed  at  VVir-ken- 


8URVEYUK  general's  REPORT.  47 

berg  in  1864  is  the  same  Peralta  who  made  a  codicil  in  Spain 
in  1865,  then  he  must  have  acquired  all  the  information  so 
romantically  included  in  the  codicil  within  a  year  following 
his  deeding  the  property  to  Dr.  Willing  at  Wickenberg. 

The  last  will  and  codicil  produced  in  behalf  of  the  wife 
of  Reavis  will  commend  themselves  as  most  remakable  pro- 
ductions of  detailed  minuteness  of  description,  and  for  supply- 
ing fatal  discrepancies  in  other  papers  already  filed.  The 
lack  of  all  acceptable  evidence  to  prove  relationship  between 
Peralta  (who  describes  the  rock,  and  the  hieroglyphics  so  in- 
geniously), with  the  original  grantee,  if  such  a  grantee  ever 
existed,  is  a  fatal  defect  and  renders  all  alleged  description  of 
location  contained  in  the  will  of  the  alleged  son  of  no  import- 
ance whatever.  The  Peralta  at  Wickenberg  who  made  the 
deed  to  Willing  has  as  much  claim  to  be  the  son  of  the  original 
baron  of  the  Colorados  as  far  as  the  papers  presented  here  go, 
as  the  Peralta  making  the  remarkable  will,  and  a  codicil  in 
Spain;  and  the  Peralta  making  the  deed  at  Wickenberg, 
Reavis  originally  claimed,  got  the  papers  that  Reavis  origin- 
ally filled  in  this  office  direct  from  President  Santa  Ana,  which 
under  ordinary  circumstances  would  seem  to  give  color  to  the 
claim  that  he  was  the  so"  of  the  original  grantee.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  "monumental  rock"  is  entitled  to  no 
consideration.  The  moving  of  the  location  eight  miles  south 
shows  conclusively  that  claimants  have  no  knowledge  of  prac- 
tical value,  either  to  themselves  or  to  anybody  else  as  to  the 
correct  locus  of  this  grant. 

If  we  should  admit  this  grant  as  legal  it  is  utterly  impos- 
sible to  define  even  its  approximate  boundaries.  Under  no 
circumstances  can  it  be  intelligently  located  from  the  papers 
j)roduced  in  this  office.  The  land  claimed  can  never  be  intelli- 
gently taken  possession  of,  nor  could  a  deed  for  a  portion  of  it 
ever  be  executed  that  would  have  any  legal  weight. 

By  their  own  showing,  eight  miles  .s  a  pretty  wide  margin 
for  land  boundaries. 

Tt  has  been  the  custom  of  Spain  and  Mexico  in  investing 


48  SUKVEVUK  UKNEIIAL  S    KEPGRT. 

titles  ill  gniiitees  to  give  judicial  possession  and  to  make  sur- 
veys. Lines  were  frequently  marked  by  natural  monuments; 
if  .-lesiralde  natural  monuments  could  not  be  utilized  artificial 
monuments  of  stone,  were  built.  The  lines  were  surveyed  and 
measured,  sometimes  estimated,  between  natural  objects;  but 
in  nil  cases-the  locating  of  a  grant  occurred  on  the  ground 
granted.  When  possession  was  doliverejl  it  was  done  in  a 
manner  sufiicienlly  intelligible  to  finable  the  grantee  to  pass 
title  such  as  a  court  would  recognize.  It  was  then  the  duty 
to  file  the  plat  of  survey,  with  all  the  proceedings  appertain- 
ing to  giving  possession  in  the  proper  governmental  archives; 
as  to  n)anner  of  obtaining  granta  under  viceroys,  and  the  rc'^ 
quirements  in  giving  possession  (sae  chaps.  V  &  IX,  Hall's 
Mexican  Law).  This  shows  that  detailed  proceedings  such  as 
surveys,  locations,  etc.,  occurred  on  the  ground. 

The  oldest  of  the  Pima  Indians  located  at  present  in  the 
"Pimeria  Alta"  of  the  days  of  the  Jesuits  at  San  Xavier  del 
Bac,  whose  fathers  and  forefathers  have  been  born  and  resided 
from  time  immemorial  in  the  immediate  country  alleged  to  be 
covered  by  this  grant,  have  no  knowledge  or  tradition  of  such 
a  grant  or  any  one  taking  possession  of  such  a  property  and  it 
is  almost  certain  such  a  tradition  would  exist  if  such  an 
occurrence  took  place  as  claimed.  (See  affidavit  Hon.  P.  R. 
Brady,  herewith).  Besides  this  the  law  of  Spain  applicable  to 
the  time  when  this  grant  was  said  to  have  been  made,  antici- 
pated possible  trouble  with  the  Indians  by  providing  that 
they  should  be  consulted  and  treated  witb  in  regard  to  land 
grants  in  their  neighborhood,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  trans- 
action of  giving  this  land  to  Peralta  would  have  been  dissem- 
inated among  peaceable  Indians  living  on  the  land  such  as  the 
Maricopa  and  Pima  tribes. 

The  state  of  aflPairs  that  existed  regarding  the  boundar- 
ies of  this  grant  would  invalidate  it  for  lack  of  certainty,  if 
the  grant  was  determined  to  be  genuine.  The  laches  of  the 
original   owners  receiving  a  grant  in  1758,  under  a  vicerov  of 


SURVEYOR  liENERAl/S    REPORT.  49 

Spain,  who  neglected  taking  possession  of  the  property  until 
it  passed  under  the  independent  Mexican  government,  and 
still  neglected  taking  possession  until  it  became  the  property 
of*  the  United  States  by  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  and  who 
thereafter  still  neglected  taking  possession  for  a  period  o' 
thirty  years,  should  forfeit  every  property  right.  It  is  pre- 
posterous now,  for  the  United  States  to  be  asked  to  put  claim 
niants,  or  alleged  heirs  into  possession,  whose  ancestors  or 
grantors  were  unable  to  produce  satisfactory  evidence,  that 
they  owned  this  land. 

To  show  how  seriously  the  Mexican  authorities  consid- 
ered the  question  of  positive  boundaries,  I  will  call  attention 
to  the  "Buena  Vista  Grant,"  which  was  made  in  the  early 
part  of  the  present  century.  In  this  case  the  attorney-general 
reported  to  the  treasurer-general,  in  the  matter  of  the  survey 
of  the  grant  "that  in  the  measurement  made,  are  only  found 
the  measurements  made  from  the  center  to  the  east,  west> 
north  and  south,  without  making  out  the  square,  without 
which  no  survey  of  a  Sitiocan  be  considered  to  have  been 
made,"  and  the  papers  were  returned  on  this  account,  the 
treasurer  general  having  approved  the  views  of  the  attorney- 
general. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  this  extraordinary  care 
sprung  into  practice  at  a  moments  notice,  but  rather  that  it 
had  prevailed  for  fifty  years  before,  and  that  it  was  made  part 
of  the  law  of  Mexico,  on  account  of  its  having  been  the  ordi- 
nary practice  theretofore.  In  many  of  the  various  cases  in- 
volving land  grants,  as  reported  in  the  U.S.  reports,  the  ques- 
tion of  boundaries  and  taking  possession,  has  steadily  arisen, 
and  many  grants  have  been  declared  void,  and  of  no  effect,  on 
account  of  the  laek  of  documentary  proof  of  possession  etc.  re- 
quired by  the  Spanish  and  Mexican  laws. 

Proceedings  Required  in  Granting  Lands 
In  1758. 

The  Cedula  of  October  15th.  1754,  which  will  be  /emem- 
bered,  was  issued  between  the  alleged  recommendation  of  the 
King  in  1748,  and  the  alleged  grant  by  the  Viceroy  in    1758, 


50  SURVEYOR  GENERAl/S    REPORT. 

.somewhat  changed  the  modus  operandi,  hitherto  prevailing  in 
land  grant  matters.  It  relieved  the  grantee  from  being  com- 
pelled to  have  hi>*  grant  confirmed  by  the  king. 

The  proceedings  for  the  adjudication  of  untitled  lands 
customary  in  1777,  were  unquestionably  the  same  as  those 
practiced  in  1758,  in  which  year  the  Peralta  Grant  is  said  to 
have  been  made. 

The  proceedings  of  1777,  are  quite  minutely  stated  to  have 
been  the  following: — 

First,  Writing  of  the  applicant  submitted  to  the  spe. 
cialjudgeof  land  and  water. 

Second,     Writ  of  attorney-general. 

Third,  Attorney's  report,  authenticated  by  notary  on 
what  was  called  "Acordado." 

Fourth,  Transmission  of  the  "Acordado"  to  the  gover- 
nor of  the    province,    where    application    was  made. 

Fifth,  Proceedings  (paso)  of  the  lieutenant-general  of 
the  province. 

Sixth,  Proceedings  of  the  justice  of  the  town,  where 
the  application  was  made. 

Seventh,     Writ  of  execution. 

Eighth,     Writ  of  order  to  publish  warrant. 

Ninth,  Writ  of  publication  requiring  the  interested 
parties  to  present  witnesses. 

Tenth,     Testimony  of  witnesses. 

Eleventh,  Writ  to  summon  the  owners  of  adjoining 
lands,  if  there  be  any. 

Twelfth,      Summons  to  same  parties. 

Thirteenth,     Reply  to  same. 

Fourteenth,     Appointment  of  experts. 

Fifteenth,     Appointment  of  interpreters. 

Sixteenth,     Acceptance  of  the  charge. 

Seventeenth,     Writ  to  visit  place  of  proceedings. 

Eighteenth,     Ocular  examination. 

Nineteenth,  Notice  that  survey  and  ocular  examina- 
tion had  been  terminated. 

Twentieth,     Measurement  with  cord. 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  51 

Twenty-first,  Beginning  of  the  measurement  of  the 
land. 

Twenty-second,  Continuation  of  the  measurement  with 
cord. 

Twenty-third,  Notice  that  measurement  had  been  con- 
cluded, and  report  of  the  result  obtained. 

Twenty-fourth,  Declaration  showing  the  extent  of  the 
land  that  had  been  measured. 

Twenty-fifth,     Map  of  the  land. 

Twenty-sixth,      Appraisement. 

Twenty-seventh,  Opinion  of  the  judge  of  the  proceedings, 
declaring  whether  there  is  not  prejudice  of  a  third  party, 
and    if    land    can   be    granted. 

Twenty-eighth,  The  record  of  the  proceedings  is  deliv- 
ered under  seal  to  be  transmitted  to  the  special  judge  of 
lands  and    water    rights,  who  resides  in  Mexico. 

Twenty-ninth,  The  special  judge  ordered  the  records  to 
be  referred  to  the  attorney-general. 

Thirtieth,  Opinion  of  the  attorney -general  of  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

Thirty-first,  Decision  of  judge,  comply  with  the  in- 
structions of  the    attorney-general. 

Thirty-second,  The  royal  officers  are  instructed  to  revise 
the  sum  for  which  the  land  was    adjudged. 

Thirty-third,    Receipt  of  said  sum. 

Thirty-fourth,  Transmission  to  the  attorney-general  for 
confirmation. 

Thirty -fifth,    Issue  of  grant. 

(See  Mexican  ordinances  of  lands  and  water  rights.) 

What  Judg:e  Field  said  on  page  261,  4th.  Wallace  (Gra- 
ham, United  States)  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Peralta 
claim,  under  the  above  required  proceedings.  Judge  Field 
says: — 

"As  we  have  had  occasion  heretofore  to  observe,  the 
Mexican  law,  as  well  as  the  common  law,  made  a  formal  de- 
livery of  possession,  or  livery  «)f  seizen     of  the  property,    es- 


62  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT 

sential  alter,  the  execution  of  a  grant,  for  the  investiture  of 
the  title.  This  proceeding  was  usually  taken  by  the  magis- 
trate of  the  vicinage,  with  assisting  witnesses,  in  the  presence 
of  the  adjoining  land  proprietors,  who  were  summoned  for  the 
occasion.  As  preliminary  to  the  actual  delivery  of  possession, 
the  land  had  to  be  measured,  and  its  boundaries  established, 
when  there  was  any  uncertainty  of  description  of  the  premi- 
ses. Various  regulations  for  the  guidance  in  these  matters  of 
the  magistrates  were  prescribed  by  law.  That  which  con- 
cerns the  present  inquiry  is  that  they  required  the  magistrate 
to  preserve  a  record  of  the  measurement,  and  all  other  steps 
of  the  proceedings,  to  have  the  same  attested  by  the  assisting 
witnesses,  and  to  furnish  an  authentic  copy  to  the  grantee. 
By  this  proceeding — called  in  the  language  of  the  country  the 
delivery  of  juridical  possession — the  land  granted  was  separated 
from  the  public  domain,  and  what  was  previously  a  grant  of 
quantity  became  a  grant  of  specific  tract." 

As  to  Records  and  Where  to  be   Found. 

The  council  of  the  Indies,  **Conseljo  Supren^o  de  Indies," 
was  formed  August  Ist,  1524,  and  held  its  sessions  at  Madrid, 
Spain,  and  had  both  executive  and  judicial  jurisdiction  and 
its  powers  were  exclusive  of  all  others  as  regards  the  govern- 
mental affairs  of  New  Spain,  and  it  continued  the  exercise  of 
such  powers  until  the  year  1834.  See  Sec.  6,  page  3,  Hall's 
Mex.  Law.  In  Law  43,  page  27,  Lib.  11,  Tit  2,  White's  re- 
compilation  it  is  provided  "No  memorial  from  any  person 
whatever  shall  be  received  for  services  which  shall  not  be 
supported  by  certificates  from  viceroys,  generals,  or  other 
chiefs  under  whom  such  services  shall  have  been  performed, 
except  those  persons  who  shall  have  served  in  the  councils." 

Such  certificates  were  to  be  furnished  to  the  council  of 
the  Indies.  Peralta  was  an  alleged  captain  of  dragoons,  and 
claimed  the.  grant  as  a  reward  for  military  and  other  services. 

It  is  postive  from  the  laws  existing  at  the  time  of  this  al- 
leged granting  of  the  land  to  Peralta  that  the  king  would  not 
have  is.-iued  a  recommendation  to  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain  to 


8UKVEYOK  general's  KEPORT.  6H 

make  a  grant,  except  through  the  medium  of  his  council  of 
the  Indies,  which  was  made  to  sit  at  Madrid  so  as  4o  be  cons 
venient  to  his  royal  person,  and  created  especially  to  take 
cognizance  of  such  matters,  being  located  near  the  royal  per- 
son of  the  king  for  easy  consultation  on  matters  appertaining 
to  the  very  country  over  which  the  grant  was  to  be  floated 
and  preceding  any  action  by  the  king  or  council,  the  proper 
certificate  as  to  Peralta's  services  would  have  to  be  produced 
and  would  be  on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  council. 

The  law  54,  page  29,  White's  Recompilation  provides,  *'and 
we  permit  that  in  cases  of  petitions  and  memorials  for  rewards 
or  for  compensation  for  services  or  other  matters  of  grace,  the 
same  may  be  entitled  to  consideration  and  reconsideration,  the 
records  whereof  and  all  matters  connected  therewith  shall 
remain  in  custody  of  the  secretary  of  the  council,  together  with 
the  other  papers  of  the  office." 

Now  the  grant  to  Peralta  would  be  purely  a  "matter  of 
grace"  to  reward  him  for  military  or  other  services  of  a  dis- 
tinguished nature,  and  the  records  of  the  proceedings  should 
be  in  the  place  provided  by  law.  The  records  of  the  council 
of  the  Indies  should  show  all  the  details  of  the  steps  preceding 
the  grant,  if  such  a  grant  was  ever  made,  and  under  the  law 
the  viceroys  recommendation  in  favor  of  Peralta  or  the 
recommendation  of  some  general  under  whom  Peralta 
served,  should  h^.  on  file  in  the  records  of  the  council 
of  the  Indies,  as  the  very  initial  step  of  the  whole  proceedings. 
Nothing  of  this  nature  is  produced.  No  one  can  reasonably 
dispute  that  it  would  be  especially  fitting  that  a  matter  of  so 
much  importance  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  viceroy  of 
New  Spain  should  have  been  recommended  by  him  (esi)ecially 
when  the  requirements  of  the  law  are  considered)  and  it  is 
hardly  probable  that  the  king  would  make  a  recommendation 
in  the  absence  of  so  important  a  link  in  the  routine  observed 
at  time  and  in  the  face  of  all  the  laws  established  by  himself, 
even  if  he  meant  to  override  the  council  of  the  Indies  in  this 
single    instance.     No  recommendation    from    the    vicerov    in 


54  SURVEYOR  GENERAL^S  REPORT. 

favor  of  Peralta  on  which  the  king  could  base  his  act  is  found 
but  in  lieu  of  such  proper  procedure  the  king  is  made  to  take 
the  initiative  on  an  alleged  recommendation  of  the  Inquisition 
etc.  which  never  had  any  jurisdiction  whatever,  and  is  not 
produced.  Such  an  act  would  have  been  to  completely 
ignore  the  viceroy  under  whose  jurisdiction  Peralta  and  his 
great  estate  would  come.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  cannot  be 
entertained,  but  if  under  the  circumstances  the  king  was  to 
violate  the  established  custom  of  the  time  we  imagine  it  would 
be  for  some  grandee  of  Spain  close  to  the  throne  and  would 
not  occur  in  the  case  of  a  man  wholly  unknown  to  Spanish 
history.  The  action  of  the  king  in  1748  is  alleged  to  have 
occurred  "Agreeably  to  the  petition  of  the  Royal  Inquisition 
of  New  Spain,  the  recommendation  ot  the  Council  of  Com- 
merce, and  the  Judge  of  Appeals,"  still  these  papers  are  not 
even  produced  from  the  archives  of  the  council  of  the  Indies 
where  they  should  be  found. 

The  Law — Lib.  11,  Tit.  2,  Law  45,  White's  Recompilation 
provides:  "The  party  addressing  a  meniorial  shall  therein  set 
forth  all  the  services  rendered  by  him  up  to  its  date,  because 
no  other  shall  thereafter  be  admitted  and  the  members  of  our 
Royal  Council  of  the  Indies  shall  receive  orders  not  to  admit 
them." 

Now  it  is  only  claimed  that  Peralta  was  a  captain  of 
dragoons  and  operating  in  the  province  of  the  viceroy,  there- 
fore if  a  person  memoralized  the  king  to  perform  an  act  of 
grace,  and  make  a  grant  to  Peralta,  the  memorial  would  be 
minute  in  setting  forth  the  seryices  of  so  small  an  officer  as  a 
captain  of  dragoons,  who  expected  so  vast  a  grant,  and  more 
especially  when  an  ocean  lay  between  the  king  and  the  brilliant 
performances  of  Peralta,  and  without  the  recommendation  of 
the  viceroy.  ,  '      ;     - 

History  and  the  records  however  are  silent  in  the  matter 
and  the  kingly  act  is  left  in  solituda.  While  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  comprehended  small  matters  of 
reward,  compensation  and  grace,  they  likewise  took  cognizance 


ciURVEYOU  general's    REPORT.  55 

of  matters  of  the  greatest  importance  occurring  in  the  (ndics, 
and  New  Spain,  wherein  ihz  kingdom  of  Spain  was  interested 
and  no  difflculty  should  exist  in  producing  the  proper  records 
appertaining  to  the  alleged  grant,  if  bona  fide.  That  the 
author  of  the  paper  produced  here  as  the  act  of  Ferdinand  VI, 
whether  king  or  layman,  understood  thoroughly  what  an  im- 
portant factor  the  Council  of  the  Indies  was  in  the  prennses, 
is  evidenced  by  the  reference  in  the  cedula  to  persons,  etc.,  who 
recommended  the  grant  to  the  king,  in  the  apparent  hope 
that  sight  would  be  lost  of  the  proper  channel  through  which 
a  grant  of  the  nature  of  the  Peralta  grant  would  have  to  go. 

"The  council  to  have  supreme  jurisdiction  in  the  Indies 
to  make  laws,  examine  statutes,  and  to  be  obeyed  there,  and 
in  these  kingdoms."  Lib.  11,  Tit.  2,  Lav/  2,  White's  Recom- 
pilation.  -'No  council,  chancery  tribunal,  judge,  no  justices 
of  these  kingdoms  other  than  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  shall 
take  cognizance  of  affiiirs  connected  with  them."  Lib.  11, 
Tit.  2,  Law  3,  W  bite's  Recompilation. 

I  quote  these  laws  to  show  how  completely  the  affairs  of 
the  Indies  were  in  the  hands  of  the  council  in  1748,  and  prior  to 
that  date,  and  how  exceedingly  improbable  it  appears,  that  the 
king  should  ignore  that  body,  in  the  matter  of  a  mammoth 
grant;  to  a  mere  Captain  of  Dragoons  3000  miles  away. 
Law  42  provides:  "In  the  reports  made  to  us  in  cases  of  re- 
wards, and  compensation  for  services  the  qualiHcations,  mer- 
its and  services  of  the  persons  in  whose  behalf  they  are  made, 
shall  be  fully  stated,  together  with  the  testimony  and  the  facts 
supporting  the  S'^me,  setting  forth  how  and  where  such  ser- 
vices have  been  rendered,  the  compensation  made  in  money  or 
otherwise,  and  the  objections  of  our  fiscal,  if  such  there  be; 
-:.  .and  for  the  better  fulfillment  of  this,  there  shall  be  in  the 
..  custody  of  our  secretaries,  a  record  and  statement  of  said  com- 
pensation, and  reward  as  shall  have  been  granted  by  us,  and 
each  shall  keep  one  for  the  provinces  and  districts  resorting  to 
this  office."  This  law  shows  conclusively  that  the  greatest 
care  wa*^  exercised  by  the  King  of  Spain,  in    making   grants, 


56  SOKVEYOK  GJi:JSEKAL'S    REPOKT. 

and  rewarding  persons.  He  had  to  haveevidenceof  just  what 
the  services  were,  and  how  much  the  petitioner  for  further 
royal  favors  had  received,  in  order  that  he  might  judge  wheth- 
er the  money  paid,  or  favors  done,  had  been  adequate  com- 
pensation for  the  services  performed.  In  no  other  way  could 
royal  patronage  be  safely  bestowed,  and  papers  would  have 
been  produced  in  the  c«se  of  such  a  grant  as  that  alleged  to 
Peralta,  showing  everything  connected  with  his  services,  be- 
fore the  king  would  act,  otherwise  Peralta  might  have  been 
unwisely  rewarded  in  the  premises.  The  Audieneies  of  the 
Indies,  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  council  of 
the  Indies.  See  Lib.  2,  Tit,  15,  Law  1.  Consequently  all 
proceedings  had  before  them,  would  be  referred  with  the  evi- 
dence to  the  council  of  the  Indies;  which  shows  an  additional 
reason,  why  the  full  record  of  the  preliminary  proceedings  of 
the  Peralta  Grant,  if  genuine,  should  be  found  in  the  Archives 
of  the  Indies. 

The  following  is  a  legal  factor  in  the  Peralta  grant,  of 
no  mean  proportion-f  See  Lib.  2,  Tic.  15,  Law  164,  vVhite's 
Recompilations.  "The  audieneies  shall  besides  keep  a  regis- 
ter, where  shall  be  inscribed  the  names  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the'r  respective  districts,  a  statement  of  their  services,  and  the 
amount  of  compensation  paid  to  each  in  money,  by  the  way 
of  extra  compensation,  or  otherwise,  and  of  the  offices  to  which 
he  has  been  appointed,  which  register  shall  agree  with  the 
journal  of  the  audieneies,  in  order,  that  whenever  a  claim  fpr 
services  shall  be  presented,  said  audience  may  set  forth  its 
opinion  thereon.  Of  this  register  a  copy  shall  be  transmitted 
to  our  royal  council  of  the  Indies,  with  as  little  delay  as  pos- 
sible, and  if  subsequently  there  be  made  to  it  any  addition, 
correction  or  amendment,  information  thereof  shall  immedi- 
ately be  transmitted  to  us,  that  the  corresponding  alteration 
may  be  made  in  the  copy  first  sent,  and  that  we  may  know 
»fhat  is  the  nature  of  the  services,  and  grant  the  proper  com- 
pensation." This  shows  how  particular  the  provisions  were 
for  transacting  business  in  the  Indies  of    the    nature    of  the 


67 


Peralta  Grant,  and  all  kindred  acts.  Here  we  have  as  care- 
ful a  system  of  registration,  as  the  present  laws  provide  for  in 
our  own  country. 

"The  audiences  shall  besides  keep  a  register,  where  shall 
be  inscribed  the  names  of  the  inhabitants  of  their  respective 
districts,  a  statement  of  their  services."  How  in  the  face  of 
such  laws,  could  so  exalted  a  personage  as  Peralta  have  been 
entirely  unknown?  The  presumption  is  greatly  against  his 
having  existed  or  having  received  a  grant. 

In  the  view  that  the  Peralta  grant  is  claimed  as  an  abso- 
lute grant  in  consideration  of  services  rendered,  and  that  no 
further  proceedings  after  the  grant  was  actually  made  were  to 
occur,  the  records  should  have  been  complete,  and  when  I  say 
recprds,  I  refer  to  the  records  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  It 
IS  utterly  impossible  for  such  pi-ovisions  of  law  asexisted  at  the 
time  the  grant  is  alleged  to  have  been  made,  to  have  been 
ignored,  and  the  archives  should  be  replete  with  records  con- 
nected with  the  Peralta  grant,  if  ever  made. 

In  Pibo  vs.  U.  S.  2nd  Wallace  282,  Jud^:e  Field  in 
delivering  his  opinion  said;  "As  will  be  perceived  from  this 
statement  it  was  an  essential  part  of  the  system  of  Mexico 
to  preserve  full  record  evidence  of  all  grants  of  the  public 
domain  and  o  the  various  proceedings  by  which  they  were 
obtained.  When  therefore,  a  claim  to  land  in  California  is 
asserted  under  an  alleged  grant  from  the  Mexican  governtiient 
reference  must,  in  che  first  instance,  be  had  to  the  archives  of 
the  country  embracing  the  period  when  the  grant  purports  to 
have  been  made.  If  they  furnish  no  information  on  the  sub- 
ject a  strong  presumption  naturally  arises  against  the  validity 
of  the  instrument  produced  which  can  oidy  be  overcome,  if  at 
all  by  the  clearest  proof  of  its  genuineness,  accompanied  by 
open  and  continued  possession  of  the  premises." 

Now  the  above  unquestionably  not  only  contemplates  the 
j)roduction  of  full  records,  but  it  contem|)lates  these  records 
being  produced  from  tbe  proper  archives,  that  is  the  claimants 
to  the  Peralta  grant  should  have  produced  full  records  from  the 


58  SURVEYOR  general's    REPORT.* 

archives  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  proper  archives  of 
Spain,  "embracing  the  period  when  the  king's  recommendation 
purports  to  have  bean  made,"  were  the  archives  of  the  Council 
of  the  Indies.  According  to  Judge  Field  then  inasmuch  as 
proper  records  have  not  been  produced  in  evidence  from  the 
proper  resting  place,  a  strong  presumption  naturally  arises 
against  the  validity  of  the  inatrument  produced,  and  the  Judge 
goes  on  to  say  that  the  clearest  proof  must  be  offered  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  papers  accompanied  by  open  and  con- 
tinued possession. 

The  claimants  of  the  Peralta  claim  fall  short  in  both 
these  requirements. 

The  Pico  case  covered  a  claim  alleged  to  have 
been  granted  under  the  regulations  of  1828,  which 
were  adopted  in  connection  with  the  colonization  law 
of  1824,  but  what  was  applicable  in  the  Pico  case 
was  equally  applicable  in  the  Peralta  case,  as  far 
as  record  evidence  of  the  grant  was  concerned,  as  the  laws 
governing  in  the  premises  in  the  time  of  the  council  of  the 
Indies  were  equally  circumspect  in  prescribing  the  necessity  of 
perfect  records  of  grants.  Judge  Field,  in  the  Pico  case,  says: 
"Tested  by  this  rule,  the  grant  under  which  the  appellant 
claims  was  properly  rejected  as  invalid." 

It  is  provided  in  Lib.  2,  Tit.  33,  Law  1,  White's  Kecom- 
pilati^)n  that  when  anyone  asks  for  reward  he  shall  go  before 
the  Royal  Audience  of  the  District,  set  forth  his  claim,  etc. 
The  audience  then  to  seal  the  same  together  with  their  own 
opinion  in  the  premises  and  send  it  through  two  different 
channels  to  the  council  of  the  Indies.  This  gives  additional 
force  to  the  wisdom  of  the  court's  position  in  the  Pico  case,  as 
applied  to  the  Peralta  case;  and  on  the  question  of  the  non- 
production  of  the  records  from  the  proper  archives,  this  case 
must  fail,  if  all  else  is  admitted  as  genuine. 

To  the  student  of  Spanish  law  it  early  becomes  a  patent 
fact,  that  during  the  previous  century  and  prior  thereto,  the 
royal  patrimony  was  the  beneficiary  in    all  cases  of  grants  of 


SUKVKYUK  UE^•EKA^/S    KbJl'UKT.  59 

land  belonging  to  the  throne,  but  in  Peralta's  case  the  king 
reeommends  to  the  vieeroj  the  absolute  donation  of  the  5,000,- 
000  acres  uf  Inud,  in  violation  of  all  former  customs  and  exist- 
ing laws,  and  all  this  to  a  mere  captain  of  dragoons  in  New 
Spain.  The  objects  of  the  Spanish  grants  were  to  encourage 
settlements.  To  extend  the  lines  of  civilization  throui{hout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  Spanish  provinces.  To  settle  up 
•the  countries  as  rapidly  as  possible  in  order  to  be  able  to  offset 
the  incursions  of  hostile  Indians.  Conditions  were  inserted 
almost  without  exception  in  grants  to  incur  the  settlement  of  a 
certain  number  of  familes,  or  people,  on  the  land  granted 
within  a  certain  limited  time;  as  in  the  case  of  "Arrendonda.'' 
See  page  691,  6th  Peters.  Or  mills  were  to  be  erected,  towns 
to  be  built,  cattle  to  be  put  upon  tlie  land,  or  some  other 
requirement  as  would  conduce  to  advance  the  state  of  civiliza- 
tion. See  U.  S.  vs.  Clark,  8  Peters,  page  436;  U.  S.  vs. 
Sibbald,  10  Peters,  page  313;  U.  S.  vs  Mills,  12  Peters,  page 
215.  This  class  of  grants  cited  above  made  with 
conditions  precedent  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century* 
do  not  seem  to  have  grown  out  of  any  royal  order, 
but  became  customary  in  the  interest  civilizing  the  Amer- 
i(.'an  provinces.  I  quote  these  cases  in  the  interest  of 
showing  that  so  well  were  the  king's  desires  in  the 
premises  understood,  and  so  thoroughly  were  precedents 
established  that  without  any  royal  order  on  the  subject  the 
governors,  captains,  generals  and  others  empowered  by  th« 
king  to  act  inserted  conditions  precedent  to  grants,  and  they 
stood  in  that  condition  when  the  territory  was  acquired  by  the 
United  States.  Dozens  of  these  grants  with  conditions,  as  the 
only  cost  of  purchase  or  gift  will  be  found  in  the  United  States 
supreme  court  reports.  All  these  grants,  however,  were  Lilli- 
putian when  compared  to  the  great  grant  to  Peralta,  and  we 
are  told  that  this  utdinown;  insignificant  captain  of  dragoons, 
got  his  grant  without  conditions  or  any  formalities  of  law 
whatever;  while  Bancroft  tells  us  on  page  360,  volume  9  that 
Augustin  de  Ahumada  y  Villalon,  the  viceroy,  who  is  alleged 
to  have  made  this  5,000,000  acre  grant    to    Peralta   who    was 


t)0  SUKVEYUK  (iENEKAL'S     KEl'UKT. 

appointed  viceroy  by  the  king  on  account  of  his  great  military 
career  in  Italian  wars,  died  without  any  means  and  left  a  pov- 
erty stricken  widow,  is  it  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  king 
weuld  leave  this  great  historical  figure  to  die  in  poverty,  this 
sub-king  of  the  Spanish  realm,  and  still  regard  this  man 
Perlta  with  so  lavish  a  hand,  when  he  is  not  even  mentioned  by 
the  Audiencia  of  his  01V71  district,  \indei  the  law,  and  rewani 
him  by  violating  established  laws  and  customs  and  sacrificing, 
the  opportunity  to  enrich  tlie  royal  cofiers;  all  of  which  is 
incredible,  considering  the  date  at  which  the  jjrant  is  alleged 
to  have  been  made. 

Bancroft  particularly  speaks  of  the  enriching  of  the  king 
by  Augustin  de  Ahuniada's  predecessor,  suid  it  is  not  con- 
sistent that  this  marked  departure  should  occur  in  the  case  of 
a  man  like  Peralta,  who  was  not  known,  and  whose  name  wa  • 
not  e^'en  among  the  records  wherein  were  registered  the  most 
humble  under  the  laws  of  that  time. 

One  of  the  weakest  propositions  in  the  case  is  the  produc- 
tion of  the  papers  purporting  to  be  from  the  archives  of  the 
holy  inquisition.  A  knowledge  of  the  Spanish  law  appertaining 
to  the  times  under  consideration  shows  that  there  is  no  more 
propriety  in  producing  the  Peralta  records  from  the  archives  of 
the  inquisition,  than  there  would  be  in  producing  the  present 
records  of  the  state  department  from  the  archives  of  Trinity 
church  100  years  hence.  The  inquisition,  under  the  law,  was 
not  the  proper  custodian  for  land  grant  papers,  and  in  no  way, 
shape  or  form  had  jurisdictiou  to  mix  up  in  the  matter,  and  it 
is  very  unbecominir,  from  a  legal  standpoint,  to  produce 
records  from  such  alleged  resting  places. 

The  king  zealously  watched  and  controlled  his  New  Spain 
provinces  through  proper  established  channels,  and  left  the 
inquisition  to  successfully  perform  its  proper  functions;  the 
disseminating  of  the  religious  doctrines  of  the  times,  etc., 
throughout  the  country  entrusted  to  their  spiritual  care  by 
the  Spanish  government. 

The  papers  ot  testators  etc.,  have  on  all  occasions  provided 
that  no  bonds  shall  be  required  of  executors  in    this    Peralta 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  61 

claim.  It  is  a  fact  that  an  executor  executing  so  important  a 
trust  as  settling  up  this  vast  estate,  would  probably  be  required 
to  furnish  bonds  in  the  sum  of  at  least  $10,000,000  so  a  very 
potent  reason  for  the  insertion  of  so  important  a  clause  as  the 
exemption  fiora  bonds  exists.  Very  few  persons  indeed  could 
furnish  bonds  to  administer    an  estate  of  this  kind. 

One  very  noticeable  feature  in  this  case  is  that  no  will  is 
produced  in  this  office  enumerating  that  the  testator  owned  a 
watch,  money,  heirlooms,  or  even  books,  carriages,  or  that 
inseparable  companion  to  the  average  Mexican  a  horse.  In 
the  will  of  the  grantee,  in  1783,  and  the  codicil  of  1788,  not  a 
thing  is  devised  but  the  Peralta  grant.  Are  we  to  be  asked  to 
credit  a  showing  that  a  grandee  of  Spain,  a  man  of  heroic 
deeds,  and  recognized  merits,  a  man  under  the  immediate 
patronage  of  a  great  king,  a  friend  of  a  viceroy,  and  a  captain 
of  dragoons  possessed  nothing  in  the  world  that  he  could  leave 
his  child  except  this  very  land  claim,  which  it  is  so  essential 
should  be  traced  in  these  wills. 

Again  in  the  will  and  codicils  of  the  alleged  son  we  have 
a  repetition  of  the  same  state  of  affairs.  The  son  had  lived  a 
long  life,  had  been  in  Mexico  and  the  United  States,  and  when 
he  died  with  a  great  flourish  of  will  and  codicil,  he  left  the 
Peralta  grant  to  his  alleged  grand  daughter,  the  present 
claimant,  and  did  not  as  much  as  leave  a  finger  ring  in  addi^ 
tion.  This  identical  Peralta  claim  is  the  whole  subject  of  both 
the  wills  and  codicils  of  these  great  men.  Neither  of  them 
had  a  house,  corral,  or  a  head  of  stock,  but  the  Peralta  grant 
is  never  lost  sight  of  and  as  a  solitaire  its  effulgence  is  undim- 
med  by  le&s  kingly  associates.  If  Peralta  ever  lived  on  this 
grant  in  possession,  where  is  the  house  and  other  property  that 
should  be  noticed  in  the  will? 

It  will  be  remembered  that  at  the  date  of  these  wills  and 
codicils  the  great  industry  of  the  Mexican  landowners  was  the 
raising  of  cattle  and  exporting  tallow  and  hides.  A  grandee 
of  Spain  of  the  importance  of  Peralta  and  with  the  advant- 
ages of  a  captain  of  dragoons,  owning  5,000,000  acres  of  land 


62  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

should  have  had  cattle  on  a  thousand  hills,  but  by  the  wills 
and  codicils  filed  here  by  this  man  Reavis  he  did  not  possess 
at  the  time  of  his  death  a  calf,  sheep  or  goat.  Neither  did  the 
old  baron,  nor  his  alleged  son  leave  either  a  working  interest 
in  mines  or  mineral  wealth  of  any  kind  unless  we  except  those 
on  their  alleged  grant.  When  we  consider  these  facts  and  at 
the  same  time  consider  the  fact  that  they  never  had  possession 
of  the  alleged  grant,  nor  derived  any  benefits  from  it,  they 
must  indeed  have  been  poor. 

Such  an  inconsistent  state  of  aflTairs  is  wholly  unworthy  of 
credit,  and  shows  to  my  mind  the  fabrication  of  these  papers 
by  a  person  or  persons  of  shallow  reasoning  powers. 

In  the  brief  submitted  by  the  Hon.  Clark  Churchill,  here- 
with, will  be  found  a  careful  criticism  of  the  Spanish  used  in 
the  several  documents  filed  in  this  case,  and  a  comparison  of 
the  Spanish  used  in  the  documents,  purporting  to  be  of  the 
same  origin,  but  produced  from  different  places.  Many  vari- 
ations in  spelling  etc.,  are  found,  and  the  class  of  Spanish  used 
is  not  at  all  times  of  the'high  order  that  was  used  in  the  Cas. 
tilian  court  of  the  last  century.  Other  matters  of  importance 
are  touched  upon  by  Mr.  Churchill  in  his  brief;  of  value  in 
the  consideration  of  this  case. 

I  think  I  have  conclusively  shown  that  this  Peralta  claim 
to  a  very  large  part  of  this  territory  is  worthless  from  a  dozen 
legal  standpoints,  the  chief  of  which  is  that  no  grant  was  ever 
made  by  the  viceroy,  as  alleged.  When  such  gigantic  efforts 
are  made  to  produce  evidence,  and  records  as  we  have  witnessed 
in  this  case,  without  locating  the  grant  by  the  viceroy,  it  is  to  my 
mind  positive,  that  no  such  grant  exists  or  ever  existed.  The 
papers  in  the  case  read  like  a  romance,  and  to  believe  in  the 
claim  we  have  got  to  discredit  the  representations  of  our  min* 
ister  at  Madrid  and  the  Mexican  government,  who  caused 
thorough  searches  to  be  made  of  the  archives  of  Spain  and 
Mexico,  without  finding  records,  and  we  are  compelled  to 
credit  the  story  that  the  king  departed  from  his  own  laws,  the 
established  customs  of  the  times  and  overriding  all  precedents 
at  a  break  neck  gait,  undertook  to  reward  a  man  with  a  verit- 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  63 

able  principaility,  whose  name  is  unrecorded  in  history,  and  of 
whose  brilliant  deeds  in  war  there  ceases  to  be  a  remembrance. 

If  these  allegations  are  true  as  to  the  king's  act,  is  it  to  be 
wondered  at,  that  the  viceroy  failed  to  credit  such  a  state  of 
affairs  on  the  part  of  the  king,  and  ignored  a  recommendation, 
which  after  all,  submitted  the  matter  to  his  discretion? 

The  claimant  in  alleging  that  the  viceroy  made  a  grant 
asks  us  to  believe  that  in  his  zeal  to  serve  Peralta  he  departed 
from  the  long  established  customs  of  New  Spain,  and  waived 
every  precedent  and  law  in  favor  of  Peralta.  But  if  we  believe 
all  this  the  claim  would  still  fall  for  legal  reasons. 

Another  ridiculous  feature  in  this  claim  is  the  allegation 
that  the  papers,  not  even  claimed  as  originals,  were  gotten 
together  and  sent  to  Carlos  Til  for  confirmation  by  Peralta. 
The  cedula  of  Oct.  Idth,  1754,  relieved  solicitants  for  titles  from 
transmitting  them  to  the  king  for  confirmation,  on  account  of 
great  expense.  Why  should  Peralta  have  sought  the  confirm 
ation  of  the  king  on  August  first  1768,  and  incurred  this  heavy 
expense,  when  this  alleged  grant  specifically  carried  minerals? 
No  reasonable  answer  can  be  given  this  state  of  affairs. 

Herewith  are  letters  from  Spain  showing  conclusively 
that  the  search  of  that  government  was  in  vain.  A  very  long 
letter  furnished  Mr.  Morgan,  our  American  minister  to  Mexico, 
by  the  secretary  of  state  in  charge  of  the  department  of  foreign 
relations  of  Mexico,  dated  Mexico,  Juue  14th,  1884,  being  an 
answer  to  questions  emanating  from  this  office  during  my  former 
term  says:  "Itappears  that  under  date  of  December  6th,  1883,  and 
at  the  request  of  Mr.  Hopkins  it  pleased  you  to  haveth-^  same 
identical  search  made  by  the  employees  of  this  office  for  the 
purpose  of  exhibiting  to  the  interested  party  the  documents  he 
desired  to  examine  regarding  concession,  Mr.  Hopkins  said  in  his 
petition  quoted  in  the  order  referred  to  that  he  had  in  his  posses- 
sion a  copy  with  the  seal  of  the  inquisition  and  certified  by  the  sec 
retaries  of  the  tribunal,  Mess.  August  Anthony  Carritlo  y 
Callautes  and  Joseph  de  la  Ceda  y  Debago,  and  also  by  Mr. 
Joseph  de  Avalas,  notary. 

He  solicited  permission  to  examnie  the  original  signatures 


64  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 


of  King  Carlos  III^  and  the  archives  of  the  viceroyalty  of  1758. 
and  also  the  archives  and  the  seal  of  the  royal  tribunal  of  the 
inquisition  of  the  year  1777.  The  search  being  made  at  the 
time,  and  repeated  today,  no  record  has  been  found  relating 
to  the  said  grait,  under  the  following  headings:  'Grants.^ 
'Lands'  'Royal  Decrees  and  Internal  Provinces,'  " 

"Mr.  Hopkins  was  shown  various  printed  signatures  of 
King  Carlos  III  as  no  original  ones  are  on  file,  the  seals  of  the 
inquisition,  and  he  was  informed  that  there  was  no  record  of 
such  grant.  The  search  having  been  repeated  as  afoi'esaid,  to 
compjly  with  the  request  made  by  Minister  Morgan,  in  the  name 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States  no  better  result  has  been 
obtainedr 

Then  follows  the  matter  which  is  corroboration  of  the 
powers  of  the  council  of  the  Indies,  historical  matter,  etc. 
Now  it  is  distincly  allege  i  that  this  is  a  viceroy's  grant,  and 
still  the  archives  of  the  viceroyalty  itself  at  the  City  of  Mexico, 
show  not  a  scratch  of  a  pen  in  relation  to  this  grant,  although 
thorough  search  has  been  made  twice  on  requests  from  this 
office,  and  it  is  explicitly  stated  above,  that  not  only  has  the 
archives  of  the  viceroyalty  been  searched  but  the  viceroy's 
SiTQ\\\wes  of  the  very  year  \n  which  the  grant  is  alleged  to  be 
made.  Is  this  not  conclusive  evidence  that  the  viceroy  never 
made  a  grant?  Santa  Ana's  alleged  letter  says:  '' He  searched 
in  vain.'' 

This  question  was  put  to  the  Mexican  government:  "Was 
any  record  kept  in  Madrid  of  the  concessions  made  by  the 
viceroy  of  New  Spain,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  king  of 
Spain?" 

In  this  same  letter  the  answer  comes  as  follows:  "Un- 
doubtedly such  record  was  kept  in  the  archives  of  the  Indies, 
as  it  is  generally  known  that  the  viceroy  reported  his  most 
ordinary  acts  to  the  king." 

Where  are  the  records  of  the  council  of  the  Indies  and 
why  are  they  not  produced?  Where  too,  is  the  record  that 
should  have  been  produced  from  Madrid,  showing  that  Carlos 


SURVEYOR  general's    REl'ORT.  65 

III,  confirmed  a  grant,  which  by  the  cedula  of  1754  did  not 
have  to  be  confirmed? 

The  same  letter  again  says:  "As  in  the  present  case  it  is 
alleged  that  the  grant  made  by  the  Marquis  de  his  Amarilhis, 
to  Mr.  Micljael  Peralta  in  1758,  was  ccmfirmed  l)y  King  Carlos 
III  in  1772,  it  is  safe  to  presume  that  not  encountering  in  this 
oflSce  the  royal  decree  conveying  the  said  confirmation,  it  may 
be  found  in  the  archives  of 'Simancas'  whicli  contain  those  of 
the  Indies,  accuniuhited  during  the  time  of  the  viceregal 
government,  and  which  pertain  to  the  country  formerly 
known  as  New  Spain." 

Now  we  have  ''Simancas''  the  place  of  de|)osit  of  the 
archives  of  the  Indies.  Unfoilunately  for  claimants  during 
my  previous  term  I  caused  these  archives  to  be  scArched,  and 
the  letter  herewith  from  Hon.  Dwight  T.  Reed,  to  Secretary 
Bayard,  March  26th,  1885,  shows  that  the  search  failed  as 
usual.  Wliat  can  be  made  of  all  this  except  that  no  such 
grant  ever  existed? 

The  royal  s^upreme  cjurt  of  Guadalajara  had  povyer  to 
make  grants  of  land,  and  was  in  direct  correspondence  with 
the  king.  Such  grants  as  were  made  by  the  powers  imme- 
diately referred  to  should  properly  beofrecoid  at  Guadalajara! 
but  claimants  do  away  with  all  such  consideniiions  as  it  is 
positively  asserted  that  this  grant  was  made  by  the  viceroy  and 
it  falls  on  that  issue.  The  archives  of  the  viceroyalty  were  ifi 
the  Cit/  of  Mexico  where  he  presided.  A  president  of  the  roijal 
audiencia  presided  at  Guadalajara. 

The  letter  under  consideration  contains  the  following:  "It 
is  probable  that  under  the  archives^ of  the  Indies  now  kept  at 
Simancas  in  Spain  a  record  may  be  found  of  the  documents 
called  for,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  even  the  mo^t  ordinary  acts 
were  reported  explicitly  to  the  king  of  Spain  by  the  viceroys, 
especially  so  when  in  the  present  case  a  special  mandate  of  the 
sovereign  had  issued  previously."  . 

This  lett"r  is  from  the  archivero  of  the  general  jHiblic 
archives  of  the  nation  of   Mexico,  a  savant    of  Spanish    laws, 


66  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

customs  and  regulations.  To  argue  the  illegality  of  this  grant 
further,  with  such  a  showing  as  I  have  made.  I  consider  a  loss 
of  time,  bat  one  more  point  in  this  report  before  I  rest.  The 
following  question  was  asked  by  this  office  of  the  Mexican 
government:  "What  rule  appears  to  have  been  observed  in 
Mexico  at  the  time  the  document  above  referred  to  is  said  to 
have  been  executed.  Were  the  original  concessions,  recom- 
mendations, etc.,  filed  as  records  or  copies  of  the  same?  Did 
the  government  put  on  file  the  originals  or  the  copies?  Did 
grantees  receive  the  originals  or  copies  of  the  same?" 

The  archivero  answering  in  the  letter  under  consideration 
says:  "The  viceroy  and  the  royal  supreme  court  general^ 
made  the  grants  of  land  and  water  rights  in  the  name  of  his 
majesty,  the  king  of  Spain,  keeping  a  certified  copy  on  file  in 
the  section  of  grants,  and  the  original  document  was  delivered 
to  the  interested  party  as  a  safe  guard  for  his  title./ 

I  now  ask  the  claimant  or  claimants  to  produce  this  orig- 
inal grant  of  the  viceroy. 

Speedy  and  final  action  should  be  had  on  this  base  claim? 
in  order  that  the  people  of  this  territory  may  enjoy  their  homes 
with  peace  of  mind.  And  parties  guilty  of  forgery  or  the 
fabrication  of  papers  that  have  caused  so  much  trouble  should 
be  vigorously  prosecut»ul  by  the  government,  and  that  without 
delay. 

I  recommend  that  the  alleged  grant  should  not  be  con- 
firmed as  is  prayed  for,  it  being  to  my  mind  without  the  slight- 
est foundation  in  fact  and  utterly  void. 

Respectfully    submitted, 

[Signed]  ROYAL  A.  JOHNSON, 

U.  S.  Surveyor  General  for  Arizona. 


EAL 


SUKVEYUK  GENEKAL'S  KEPOKT  67 

Affidavits  and  Letters  Referred  to  in 
Report. 

Legation  of  the 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 

Madrid,  6th,  June  1884. 
ROYAL  A.  JOHNSON,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Surveyor  General, 
Tucson,  Arizona. 
Sir: — Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  1st,  February  hist 
to  Mr.  Foster  relative  lo  the  "Peralta  Grant"  and  to  his  reply 
of  the  4tli  April,  I  have  now  to  enclose  herewith,  a  copy  of  a 
letter  of  the  14th  ultimo,  addressed  to  me  by  the  Sub  Secretary 
of  the  Ministry  of  Ultramar,  from  which  you  will  observe  that 
careful  search  has  been  made  for  the  desired  documents  but 
without  success. 

The  Department  of  State,  at  the  instance  of  the  Secretary 

,of  the  Interior,  has  sent  me  a  copy  of  your  letter  to  him  dated 

March  14th  last.     Upon  the  receipt  of  the  photographs  tJjerein 

referred  to  the  Legation  will  request  the  Minister  of  Ultramar 

to  cause  a  further  search  to  be  made. 

I  am,  sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
[Signed]  Dwight  T.  Reed, 

Charge  'd'Affaires  ad  interim. 
P.  S.  I  beg  to  add  that  Mr.  Foster  first  applied  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Fomento  ivho  replied  (after  Mr.  Foster  had  left  tor  the 
Unit*id  States)  that  the  desired  documents  did  not  exist  in 
his  department  and  recommended  that  we  apply  to  the  Minister 
of  Ultramar.  This  I  did  with  the  above  result. 
MINISTRY  OF  ULTRAMAR 
Dear  Sir: — The  Chief  of  the  General  archives  of  the 
Indies  in  Seville,  in  a  communication  of  date  the  3d  instant, 
informs  me  among  other  things  as    follows: 

"Dear  Sir: — (Ilino  Sr.)     This    office    has    duly    received 


68        SURVEYOR  general's  report. 

your  communication  of  tiie  24th  of  April  last,  enclosing  a  copy 
of  the  royal  order  communicated  by  his  Excellency  the  Min- 
ister of  Ultramar,  that  the  certified  copies  desired  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States  be  made  of  all  existing  docu's 
ments  relating  to  a  concession  of  land  situated  in  the  Territory 
of  Arizona,  known  as  the  Peralta  concession  and  particularly 
of  a  recommendation  made  by  Ferdinand  VI  December  20, 
1748,  of  the  concession  granted  by  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain, 
D.  Augustin  Aiiumada  y  Villalon,  Jan.  3d,  1758,  and  of  the 
confirmation  of  said  concession  by  Carlos  III,  Jan  20th,  1776. 

I  at  once  arranged  that  the  sixth  official,  the  oldest  in 
the  office  and  not  one  who  was  less  fitted  to  guarantee  the  sue 
cess  of  the  search,  should  proceed  immediately  with  it. 

For  the  past  four  days  he  has  devoted  himself  exclusively 
to  the  search,  ivithout  any  success  whatever. 

That  which  by  royal  order  has  been  communicated  by  the 
Minister  of  Ultramar  I  trausmit  to  you  as  an  anvverto  the  B.  L. 
M.  of  your  Excellency  of  date  April  22  last  requesting  to  know 
if  the  documents  mentioned  in  the  memorandum  you  sent 
enclosed  existed  in  the  archives  of  this  office. 

God  protect  your  Excellency  many  years. 
Madrid,  May  14th,  1884. 

Sub    Secretary, 

Miguel  Sanrez  Vigul, 
To  the  representative  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 
General  Land  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  Jan.  24th,  1885. 
Royal  A.  Johnson,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Surveyor  General, 

Tucson,  Arizona. 
Sir: — For  your  information  IJierewith   transmit  the    fol- 
lowing described  jnipers,  viz: 

Copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Hon.  Secretary  of  State  to  the 
Hon-  Sc'Tctary  of  (he  Interior,  under  date  of  the  12rh  instant 


SUKVEYOK  general's  REPORT.  69 


with  a  copy  as  its  enclosure,  being  a  copy  of  a  communication 
dated  Dec.  24th  1884  from  the  Legation  of  the  Uuited  States 
at  Madrid,  to  the  Department  of  State,  rehitiveto  the  alleged 
"Peralta  Grant"  pending  investigation  in  your  office. 

PU'ase  acknowledge  the  receipt. 

Very  Repectfully, 

[Signed]  N.  C,  McFarland, 

Two  enclosures.  (Commissioner. 

DEPARTMENT  OF    STATE. 

Washington,  D.  C.  12  Jan.  ISSo- 
Thv-  Hon.  H.  M.  Teller, 

Secretary  of  the   Interior. 
Sib,: — Referring    to    your     letters    of    the    30th     July 
and  February  last,  I  have  the    honor  to    enclose    a   copy   of  a 
dispatch    from    Spain    touching    the  Peralta  grant,  Arizona 
Territory.  I  havp  the  honor  to  be,  sir. 

Enclosure,  Mr.  Reed,  Your  obedient  servant 

to  Mr.  Frelinghuyseu,  Fred'k  T.  Frelinghuysen. 

24  Dec.  1884,  No.  272. 

LEGATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Madrid,  24,  Dec.  1884. 
No.  275. 
The  Hon.  Fred'k  T.  Frelinghuysen, 

Secretary  of  State. 

Sir: — Referring  to  the  Department's  instructions  Nos.  129 
and  224,  and  to  Mr.  Foster's  reply  No.  262,  I  have  the  honor 
to  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the  reply  of  the  Sub  Secretary  of 
Ultramar  to  Mr.  Foster's  application  in  the  matter  of  the 
"Peralta  Grant." 

It  will  be  observed  from  the  letter  of  the  Sub  Secretary 
that  the  original  copy  of  the  Peralta  Grant  does  not  seem  to  be 
among  the  archives  of  the  Indies  at  Seville,  but  there  is  a  simil- 
arity between  the  signature  of  Carlos  III,  attached  to  other 
documents  on  ^le  there,  and  that,  as  showu  in  the  photogjrapb 


70  SURVEYOR  UENERAI/S    REPORT. 

forwarded  with  your  No.  224,  the  chief  of  the  archives  at  Seville 
reports,  however,  that  the  original  document  may  possibly  be 
found  among  the  archives  at  Simancas.  I  have  consequently 
requested  the  Minister  of  Fomento  under  whose  department 
the  archives  at  Simancas  come  to  be  good  enough  to  cause  a 
search  to  be  made  for  the  original  document  and  to  aid  in  the 
search.  I  have  sent  him  the  photograph  above  reterred  to 
which  was  returned  to  me  by  the  Sub  Secretary  of  Ultramar, 
With  a  view  to  complying  with  your  instruction  No.  283 
I  have  requested  of  the  Minister  of  State  a  photograph  of  the 
autographic  signature  of  Carlos  III,  and  the  Minister  has 
replied  by  note  dated  the  19th  instant  that  he  has  referred  the 
request  to  the  Superior  Chief  of  the  Palace. 
I  have  etc. 

Dwight  T.  Reed. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE' 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  16th,  1885. 
The  Hon  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
Sir: — Referring  to  the  letters  of  your  department  of  the 
30th  July  last  and  February  1884  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose 
a  copy  of  a  dispatch  from  Spain  additional  to  the  one  sent 
your  department  on  the  12th  January  last  touching  the  Peralta 
Land  Grant  and  a  fac  simile  of  the  autograp'i  of  Carlos  III> 
of  Spain  received   therewith. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

T.  F.  Bayard. 

Enclo:ures, 

Mr.  Reed  to  Mr.  B.iyard,  26th  March,  1885,  No.  316. 

No.  316. 

LEGATION   OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Madrid,  26th  March,  1885. 
To  the  Honorable  T.  F.  Bayard, 

Secretary  of  State. 
Referring  to  Department's  instruction  No.  283  and  to  my 


6UKVEYUK  GENKKAl/S    KEPUKT.  71 

reply  No.  275  I  have  now  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith  :i 
fac  simile  of  the  autograph  of  Carlos  III,  and  of  a  copy  and 
translation  of  a  note  from  the  Minister  of  State  transmitting 
the  same  to  me.  As  will  be  observed  by  the  note  of  the  Min- 
ister the  character  of  the  document  would  not  permit  of  a 
photoirraphic  copy  being  taken. 

With  further  reference  to  my  No.  275  I  beg  to  state  that 
I  have  received  a  note  from  tlie  Minister  of  Fomento  enclos- 
ing to  me  the  reply  of  the  Director  of  the  Archives  at  Simancaa 
stating  that  careful  search  had  been  made  and  that  the  so  called 
^'Feralta  Grant"  does  not  exist  among  those  archives. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be 

Very  respectfully  etc. 

1) wight  T.  Reed. 
[Translation.] 
Enclosure  No.  3  to  Mr.  Reed  No.  816. 

MINISTRY  OF  STATE, 

Palace,  13th  March  1885, 
My  Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  your  note  of  13th  of  December 
last,  in  which  you  request  in  the  name  of  3'our  Government  J* 
photographic;  copy  of  the  signature  of  King  Curios  III  I  have 
the  honor  to  inform  you  that  his  Majesty,  my  August  Sovereign^ 
deigned  to  accede  to  the  request  but  the  character  of  the  doc- 
uments from  which  it  had  to  be  produced  not  permitting  it  to 
be  done  photographically  he  ordered  a  faithful  fac  simile  of 
the  autograph  to  be  made,  which  I  enclose  to  you. 

I  avail  mvself  of  this  opportunity  to  reiterate    to  you  the 
assurance  of  my  distinguished  consideration. 

J.  Eldnayen 
Mr.  Charge  'd'Aff'aires  of  the  United  States. 

LIBRARY   OF  CONGRESS, 

Washington,  August  13th,  1889 
Hon.  Royal  A.  Johnson,  U.  S.  Surveyor  for  Arizona, 
Tucson,  Arizona  ; 
Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  your  communication  of  July  29th 
last,  to  Hon  A.  R.  Spaffjrd,  Librarian  of  Congress,  whicli  has 


72  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

been  forwarded  to  me  by  him  from  Mohawk,  New  York,  where 
he  is  spending  his  vacation,  I  have  to  report  that  although  I 
have  not  found  in  this  library  any  Spanish  book  printed  either 
in  or  out  of  Spain,  in  exactly  the  year  1748,  there  are  many 
published  in  neighboring  years.  I  have  examined  a  consider- 
able number  of  them,  and  it  appears  to  me  that,  the  printing 
in  the  photograph  you  send  is  more  modern  than  that  in  them. 
The  long  "S"  except  as  a  final  letter  appears  to  have  been 
used  invariably  until  up  to  say,  1770,  but  that  is  not  found  in 
the  photograph.  All  the  letters  in  the  latter,  even  when  not 
differing  much  in  form  from  the  old  ones,  seem  to  be  more 
clearly  cut,  and  rather  in  more  modern  style.  All  the  indi- 
cations point  to  its  being  at  least  some  what  later  thao  1748. 
Very    respectfully, 

C.    VV.  Hoffnian,  for 
A.  R.  SpafFord,  Librarian  of  Congress. 
[Copy] 
PORTRAITS  OF  NOTED  MEN. 

ENGRAVING, 

PHOTOGRAPHIC  ARTIST. 

C.  M.  BELL, 

Nos.  459,  461,  463  &  465,  Penn'a  Ave. 
Washington,  D.  C. 
Crayons  and 

Pastel  Portraits. 

Washinjrton,  D.  C,  Sept.  25,  1889 
R.  A.  Johnson, 

Surveyor  General,  Tucson,  Arizona. 

Dj:ar  Sir:— In  reply  to  yours  of  Aug.  29tb  in  regard  to 
photographic  copies  for  Mr.  Reavis,  would  state  that  we  pho- 
tographed them  and  sold  him  the  negatives  several  years  ago 
but  kept  no  record  of  them. 

We  only  keep  a  record  of  those  we  retain. 

Very  resp'y, 
[Signed]  CM.  Bell. 

Phoenix,  Arizona,  August  20th,  1889. 
To  his  Excellency 

Governor  Lewis  Wolflev, 

Phoenix,  Arizona. 
Dear  Sir: — Pursuant  to  your    request  I  have  t!ie    honor. 


SUKVEYOK  liE^'EKAL'8    KEl^OKT.  T6 


to  submit  lierevvith  the  following  sw(.rn  statement  of  what  I 
personally  know  of  the  claim  of  one  James  Addison  Reavi.s, 
to  the  .so-called  "Peralta  Grant." 

With   much   resj)ect, 

Very  obediently  yours, 

James  D.  Monihon. 

Territory  of  Arizona,  )  or. 
County  of  Maricopa,  j 

James  D.Monihon,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says. 
I  am  a  resident  of  Phoenix,  Maricopa  county,  Arizona,  53 
years  of  age,  have  lived  in  Arizona  nearly  all  the  time  since 
i863. 

In  the  winter  of  1866  and  1867  I  became  acquainted,  in 
Prescott,  Vrizona,  with  one  Dr.  Willing,  he  was  a  mining  man, 
and  claimed  to  have  mines  in  Black  ('anon,  to  the  southw'ard 
of  Prescott.  I  kept  a  livery  stable  and  he  used  to  put  up  his 
horse  there.  I  was  keeping  the  stable  for  a  man  named 
Alexander. 

Doctor  VVilliiig  asked  me  if  I  knew  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Peralta,  and  if  so,  if  he  was  not  in  Black  Canon.  I  told 
him  that  I  knew  the  man  but  that  I  believed  that  he  was  at 
Wickenberg.  Doctor  Willing  then  asked  me  if  I  knew  of  any 
one  that  intended  going  that  way  as  he  would  like  to  have 
company  as  the  Indians  were  very  bad.  I  told  him  I  knew 
of  two  or  three  men  who  were  going  that  way  in  a  day  or  two; 
he  left  with  them.  I  cannot  now  remember  their  names.  I 
did  not  see  or  hear  of  him  again  until  the  fall  of  1867  when 
he  canje  to  a  stable  I  was  keeping  for  myself  on  Plaza  at 
Prescott.  I  kept  his  two  hor>^es  there  until  his  bill  ran  up  to 
some  $35.00  or  S40  00  and  he  said  he  wanted  to  go  to  St. 
Louis  on  some  business  and  would  send  me  the  money  from 
there.  I  told  him  I  couldn't  let  him  go  in  any  such  way;  that 
he  would  have  to  have  the  money  before  he  left.  Next  day 
he  came  to  me  and  said  he  liad  a  Hue  scheme  on  hand;  that  he 
had  got  a  floating  grant;  that  he  would  sell  me  one  half  of  it 
for  two  hundred  and  fifty  (S250.00)  dollars  down  and  we  could 


74  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 


lay  it  on  those  mines  and  plains  where  the  grass  was  growing 
in  abundance.  The  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  cash  down, 
the  balance  when  we  sell  the  land,  but  he  never  named  any 
amount  or  what  the  balance  would  be.  I  felt  very  indignant 
over  it,  and  answered  him  very  shortly  saying  I  didn't  want 
to  take  any  land  away  trom  my  neighbors,  that  I  didn't 
believe  in  grants,  and  thought  they  were  all  fraudulent;  he 
endeavored  to  reason  with  me,  saying  it  was  an  easy  way  to 
to  make  money  if  properly  carried  out;  that  we  could  sell  the 
mines  back  to  the  owners,  and  take  our  pay  as  they  took  it  out 
of  the  mines,  and  in  the  valleys  we  could  keep  large  herds  of 
stock,  and  sell  the  beef  to  the  miners,  and  the  people  who 
would  come  into  the  valleys. 

Finding  no  encouragement  from  me,  he  sold  his  horses, 
paid  my  livery  bill,  and  went  off  on  a  government  outfit.  I 
could  not  say  now  just  what  kind  of  an  ou'fit  it  was  he  left  on 
for  New  Mexico,  saying  that  once  in  New  Mexico,  he  could 
get  i\\\  the  help  he  wanted,  to  go  through  to  St.  Louis. 

Before  he  left  Prescott,  when  the  people  there  found  out 
about  his  claims  to  a  pretended  grant  and  his  intention  to  try 
to  float  it  over  their  lands  they  got  hostile,  and  treated  Dr. 
Willing  in  such  a  manner  that  he  became  alarmed,  and  said 
to  me  that  he  believed  that  he  A^oiild  try  to  float  it  over  the 
Hualapai  valley,  and  leave  Prescott  out,  and  asked  me  about 
the  valley.  Next  I  heard  of  Dr.  Willing  became  to  Prescott 
and  recorded  his  grant  claim,  and  that  night  he  died  there. 
This  was  in  1875  or  1876. 

In  the  spring.  I  think  in  March  1877,  Jan)es  Addison 
Reavis  came  to  Phoenix  claiming  to  be  agent,  I  think,  for  the 
Alta  California,  a  San  Francisco  paper.  I  was  keeping  a  livery 
stable  at  that  time  in  Phoenix,  Arizona.  He  wanted  me  to 
take  him  out  over  Salt  River  Valley  so  that  he  could  write 
it  up.  I  drove  him  out  some  four  or  five  miles  west.  He  was 
very  much  })leased  with  the  valley  and  inquired  very  particu- 
larly about  the  junction  of  the  Gila  and  Salt  rivers,  and  wanted 
to  know  if  tlie  ground  at  the  juncti(  n  of   the  two    rivers    was 


SUUVEYOK     (ibJNKKAL'S    KKl'OKT.  75 

solid,  and  as  it  was  stone,  and  had  been  i)ractically  unchnnged 
for  ages,  I  told  him  so.  I  told  him  that  about  half  a  mile 
back  from  the  junction  of  the  rivers  was  a  solid  formation  of 
rock.  We  wound  our  way  in  a  north  western  direction  over 
the  valley  for  a  couple  of  hours,  but  nothing  more  was  said 
about  the  river. 

Upon  our  return  home  we  came  to  a  river  about  three 
miles  northwest  from  town.  We  stopped  t')  view  the  surround- 
ings, and  he  told  me  that  he  could  get  a  floating  grant  and 
thought  he  would  lay  it  on  this  valley  aufj  thoujfht  he  would 
make  his  initial  j)uint  at  the  junction  of  the  Gila  and  8alt 
rivers.  I  told  him  that  he  hod  not  better  try  to  float  any 
grant  on  this  valley,  as  the  people  would  hang  him.  He 
said  he  was  going  to  do  it  to  make  money,  and  the  Southern 
Pacific  Railroad  Company  would  back  him  He  had  pas.^es 
to  travel  on  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  wherever  he  wanted 
to  go.  He  was  short  of  money  and  had  been  compelled  to 
walk  from  a  station  on  the  railroad  to  Phoenix,  and  his  feet 
were  sore,  and  he  had  the  appearance  of  being  worn  out.  I 
may  be  in  error  in  the  date  or  year  of  his  coming  to  Phoenix 
as  above  described;  but  the  statement  given  is  exactly  what 
occurred  when  he  came.  He  left  for  Prescott,  and  I  was  in- 
formed that  he  could  not  pay  his  bill  at  the  hotel  in  Phoenix  to 
Charles  Salari.  I  understand  that  he  went  to  Prescott  to  try 
to  get  the  papers  on  this  grant.  I  think  he  told  me  he  had  an 
order  for  papers  that  were  in  Pres(;utt.  Aft  'rwards  lu'  came 
to  Phoenix  and  claimed  to  have  a  grant  and  it  was  the  same 
one  tliat  Dr.  Willing  had  been  endeavoring  to  lay.  He 
recorded  a  lot  of  paj)ers  in  connection   therewith. 

Last  year  in  May,  1888,  while  I  was  on  the  train  coming 
from  St.  Louis  to  Arizona,  I  met  Reavis.  We  had  quite  a 
conversation  on  general  topics.  He  referred  to  the  co-called 
Peralta  grant,  and  said  that  the  line  of  it  was  now  two  miles 
north  of  the  city  of  Phoenix,  that  he  had  moved  the  south  line 
of  his  grant  eight  miles  further  south.  I  asked  why,  and  if  he 
was  afraid  of  the  Arizona  Canal   Company,  and   if  they    were 


76  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

too  strong  for  him  to  fight  on  the  grant  churn.  He  said  yes, 
and  that  he  wanted  to  take  in  Florence  and  other  locations 
that  he  considered  more  valuable;  and  that  he  had  relocated 
his  initial  point  at  the  point  of  the  Maricopa  mountain  about 
eight  miles  from  the  junction  of  the  Gila  and  S.tlt  rivers  on 
a  rock  bearing  hieroglyphics.     Since  then  I  haven't  seen  him. 

James  D.  Monihon. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  20th  day  of  August  1889. 

R  K.  Hickey, 
[seal]  *  Notary  Public. 

State  of  California, 

County  of  Santa  Clara, 

and  town  of  Los  Gatos. 

F.  A.  Massol  being  first  duly  sworn  says  that  the  deed  of 
mining  claim  and  landed  property  as  recorded  May  24th,  1883, 
at  request  of  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  which  said  deed  conveys  unto 
J.  A.  Keavis  the  above  mentioned  property  in  Arizona,  and 
bears  date  of  acknowledgement  of  May  22,  1867,  was  recently 
exhibted  to  him,  and  after  careful  scrutiny  pronounces  it  a 
forgery  as  regards  the  grantee.  That  to  the  best  of  his  recol- 
lection he  does  not  know  to  whom  he  conveyed  the  mining 
property.  That  he  did  not  know  nor  had  he  ever  heard  of  J. 
A.  Reavis  in  1867,  nor  did  he  afterwards  until  after  the  death 
of  George  M,  Willing  which  occurred  in  1874,  or  1875.  That 
to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  the  said  J.  A.  Reavis  obtained  the 
deed  aforesaid  from  among  the  private  papers  of  the. Willing 
estate  about  1881,  in  his  possession.  That  he  never  until 
recently  heard  of  the  land  grant  recited  in  the  said  deed.  That 
that  part  conveying  the  land  together  with  all  that  part  grant- 
ing the  described  property  unto  J.  A,  Reavis  has  been  inserted 
since  the  deed  left  his  possession. 

[Signed]  F.  A.  Massol. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to 
this  14th  of  September  1889. 
A.  Berryman, 
[bfat.]  Notary  Publit' 


SURVEYOR  general's    REPORT.  77 

State  of  California,  | 

County  of  Santa  Clara.    J  ®^ 

Fen  Massol  being  first  duly  sworn  says  that  during  the 
years  of  1880,  1881  and  1882  he  was  a  resident  of  the 
city  of  Sacramento,  county  of  Sacramento  and  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  that  during  that  time  he  met  and  became  acquaint- 
ed with  J.  A.  Reavis.  That  he  has  seen  the  deed  purporting 
to  convey  certain  mineral  and  other  lands  in  the  Territory  of 
Arizona  to  the  said  Jas.  A.  Reavis,  dated  May  22,  1867  and 
executed  by  F.  A.  Massol,  his  father. 

That  he  fully  believes  the  said  conveyance  was  obtained 
from  his  father  in  the  month  of  July  1881  when  the  said  Jas. 
A.  Reavis  secured  a  number  of  private  papers  relating  to  the 
estate  of  G.  M.  Willing,  Jr.,  in  Arizona.  That  to  the  best  of 
his  knowledge  and  belief  the  said  deed  was  made  and 
executed  to  an  unknown  party  and  conveyed  nothing  but 
mineral  lands.  That  the  said  deed  never  passed  from  the 
possession  of  his  father  until  the  before  mentioned  time.  That 
to  the  best  of  his  knowled  and  belief  the  said  deed  has  been 
changed  and  the  name  of  J.  A.  Reavis  inserted  in  the  place  of 
the  original  grantee,  and  all  that  part  deeding  lands  of  Miguel 
Peralta  has  been  inserted  since  the  death  of  G.M.  Willing,  Jr' 

That  the  said  deed  was  executed  under  a  power  of 
attorney  of  Geo.  M.  Willing,  Jr. 

Los  Gatos,  Oct.  3rd,  1889. 

[Signed]  Fen  Massol.         [seal] 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to 

before  me  this  3rd  day  of  October  1888. 
A.  Berry  man, 

[seal]  Notary  Public. 

Frank  C.  Hise  being  first  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says 
that  he  is  a  resident  of  Tu^on,  Territory  of  Arizona.  That 
he  is  at  present  and  has  been  for  a  period  of  nearly  four  years 
chief  clerk  of  the  office  of  the  Surveyor  General  for  the  district 
of  Arizona,  and  deponent  further  says  that  he  knows  one 
James  Addison  Peralta  Reavis.  and  tliat  soon  after  the  rfiturn 


78  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

of  the  said  Reavis  from  Madrid,  he  exhibited  in  the  private 
office  of  the  then  Surveyor  General  Hise,  a  metal  seal  weigh- 
ing about  one  pound  which  he  claimed  was  the  Spanish  King's 
seal,  the  same  as  the  photographic  copies  filed  in  the  Surveyor 
General's  office  on  Sept.  2nd,  1887,  by  said  Reavis  showing 
the  impressions  of.  Said  Reavis  was  questioned  as  to  how  the 
royal  seal  was  allowed  in  his  hand  by  the  Spanish  government. 
He  responded  that  he  had  to  give  heavy  bonds  for  the  safe 
keeping  and  return  of  the  seal. 

Frank  C.  Hise.    ' 
Sworn  to  before  me  this  eighth  day  of  August,  1889. 

Royal  A.  Johnson, 

[seal]  U.  S.  Surveyor  General. 

Levi  H.  Manning  being  first  duly  sworn  deposes  and 
says:  That  he  is  a  resident  of  the  city  of  Tucson,  Territory  of 
Arizona.  That  he  has  been  mineral  clerk  in  the  office  of  the 
United  States  Surveyor  General  at  Tucson,  and  that  he  was. 
employed  in  such  capacity  during  the  year  1887,  Deponent 
further  says:  That  he  is  personally  acquainted  with  a  man 
representing  himself  to  be  James  Addison  Peralta  Reavis,  the 
claimant  of  an  alleged  land  grant  in  xirizona,  designated  as 
the  "Peralta  Grant."  That  at  or  about  the  time  the  said 
Reavis  saw  fit  to  move  his  initial  monument  south  about  eight 
miles  from  the  point  originally  claimed  by  him  as  the  original 
point  (center  point  of  the  west  boundary  line)  I  heard  him  in 
conversation  in  the  Surveyor  General's  office  say  that  the 
change  ef  location  would  very  materially  enhance  the  value  of 
the  grant  as  it  would  take  in  Solomonville  and  the  rich  Gila 
valley  in  the  neighborhood  of  Solomonville;  also  valuable 
lands  in  the  Santa  Cruz  valley,  and  further  deponent  saith  not 

Levi  H.  Manning. 
Sworn  to  before  me  this  eighth  day  of  August  1889. 
Royal  A.  Johnson, 

[seal]  U.  S,  Surveyor  General. 

Frank  C  Hise  being  first  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says- 
That  he  is  a  resident  of  the  city  of  Tucson,   Territory  of  Ari- 


SUKVEYOK  general's    REPORT.  79 


zona.  That  he  has  been  chief  clerk  in  the  office  of  the 
United  States  Surveyor  General  at  Tucson  and  that  he  was 
employed  in  such  capacity  during  the  year  1887.  Deponent 
further  says  that  he  is  personally  acquainted  with  a  man  rep- 
resenting hi -nself  to  be  James  Addison  Peralta  Reavis,  the 
claimant  of  an  alleged  land  grant  in  Arizona,  designated  as 
the  Peralta  Grant. 

That  at  or  about  the  time  said  Reavis  saw  fit  to  move  his 
initial  point  south  about  eight  miles  from  the  point  originally 
claimed  by  him  as  the  original  point  (center  point  of  the  west 
boundary  line),  1  heard  him  in  conversation  in  the  Surveyor 
General's  office  say  that  the  change  in  the  location  would  very 
materiallv  enhance  the  value  of  the  grant  as  it  would  take  in 
Solomonville  and  the  rich  Gila  valley  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Solomonville  also  valuable  lands  in  the  Santa  Cruz  valley  and 
further  deponent  saith  not. 

Frank  C.  Hise. 
Sworn  to  before  me  chis  eighth  day  of  August  1889. 

Royal  A.  Johnson, 
U.  S.  Surveyor  General,  District  of  Arizona. 

Territory  of  Arizona,    | 

County  of  Pinal.  j 

Be  it  known  that  on  this  day  personally  appeared  Peter 
R.  Brady  a  citizen  of  Arizona  Territory  resident  of  Florence, 
Pinal  county,  who  being  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says:  That 
he  has  at  different  times  within  the  last  two  or  three  years  had 
conversations  with  several  of  the  principal  Indians  of  the  Pima 
tribe,  living  upon  the  lands  embraced  in  the  Gila  valley,  and 
now  claimed  by  one  J.  A.  Reavis  and  associates  as  their  prop- 
erty, under  title  from  the  Spanish  government  made  more  than 
a  hundred  years  ago,  and  that  said  Indians  have  upon  every 
occasi.)n  stated  that  to  their  postive  knowledge  no  such  claim 
or  grant  has  ever  been  made,  and  moreover  that  the  Spanish 
government,  and  afterwards  the  government  of  the  Republic 
of  Mexico  had  always  protected  them  in  their  occupation  of 
said  land§,  and  at  diffi^-rent  times  paid  them   annuities    in    the 


80  SURVEYOR    GENERAT/S    REPORT. 

way  of  clothing  and  money  and  that   from    time    immemorial 

they  have  been  recognized  by  spjd  government  as  the   rightful 

owners  of  said  lands.  Peter  R.  Brady. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  rae  this  5th 

day  of  October  1889  and    my   oificial   seal 

affixed.  G.  H.  Oury, 

[seal]  Notary  Public. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  before    the   Surveyor  General    of 

the  United  States  in  and  for  the  Territory  of   Arizona,  at 

Tucson  in  said  Territory. 

In  the  matter  of  the  claim    of  one 

self    styled    Sofia   Loreta   Micaela 

de  Maso  Reavis  and  James  Addison 

Reavis. 

Now  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  February  A.  D,  1889, 
appeared  before  the  Surveyor  General  of  the  United  States  in 
and  for  the  Territory  of  Arizona,  Thomafs  H.  McMullin,  who 
was  thereupon  duly  sworn  to  testify  in  the  above  entitled 
matter  to  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
and  examined  as  a  witness  by  Clark  Churchill,  Esq.,  counsel 
for  settlars  on  the  lands  covered  by  the  claim,  and  testified  as 
follows,  to  wit:  My  name  is  Thomas  H.  McMullin;  I  reside 
in  Phoenix,  in  the  Territory  of  Arizona.  In  the  winter  of 
the  years  1887  and  1888  I  was  in  the  City  of  Washington,  D. 
C.  While  in  said  city  of  Washington  dnring  said  winter  I  saw 
and  examined  the  original  book,  photographic  copies  of  parts 
of  which  have  have  been  filed  in  this  office  by  the  claimant 
herein,  or  one  James  Addison  Reavis,  her  reputed  husband; 
and  which  book  is  claimed  to  be  an  original  book  of  the 
records  alleged  to  have  been  kept  at  the  Mission  San  Xavier 
del  Bac  by  the  Jesuit  fathers.  This  book  was  then  in  posses- 
sion of  one  Hunter,  a  resident  of  the  City  of  Washington.  I 
fully  identified  the  book  as  being  the  same  as  that  which  was 
photographed  an  J  the  photographic  copies  of  pa/ts  of  which 
are  on  file  in  this  office  in  this  matter  and  designated  by 
claimant  as  exhibit  1,  2,  3  photographic  copies   of  records  of 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  81 


San  Xavier  Mission.  In  the  printed  brief  and  argument  of 
petitioner  tiled  herein,  I  observed  that  the  sheet  or  page  of 
said  book  upon  which  this  writing  appears  whereon  the  peti 
tioner  relies  as  referring  to  the  pretended  grant,  is  of  a  different 
kind  of  paper  from  that  in  the  other  pages  of  said  book,  and 
said  page  or  sheet  so  relied  on  by  petitioner  clearly  appears  to 
have  been  interpolated  and  inserted  into  said  book  at  some 
time  after  said  book  had  originally  been  bound.  The  paper 
composing  said  sheet  was  of  a  different  size  from  that 
of  the  other  pages  of  said  book;  so  that  when  the  book 
was  closed  the  outer  edges  of  the  paper  was  folded  into 
the  book  to  prevent  it  from  protruding  beyond  the 
edges  of  the  other  leaves  of  the  book.  The  writing 
on  this  sheet  ran  vertically  across  the  page  at  right 
angles  with  the  writing  oa  the  other  pages  when  the 
book  was  opened  in  the  usual  manner.  The  writing  on  the 
other  pages  ran  horizontally  across  the  page  in  the  usual  form 
of  writing  in  books  of  record.  The  other  parts  of  this  book 
seemed  to  be  composed  of  ancient  paper.  This  sheet  had  evi- 
dently been  so  inserted  in  said  book  after  said  book  had  been 
bound  and  was  composed  of  paper  of  an  entirely  different  kind 
and  manufacture,  and  was  comparatively  new  and  not  of  the 
ancient  character  as  that  forming  the  other  parts  of  said  book. 
The  writing  on  the  other  pages  of  said  book  was  evidently  done 
with  quill  pens,  but  the  writing  of  this  said  sheet  had  evidently 
been  done  with  a  steel  pen.  The  dates  of  the  several  entries 
in  said  book  appeared  to  be  consecutive  in  chronological  order 
from  time  except  as  to  the  entries  on  this  interpolated  sheet. 
The  entries  and  writing  on  this  interpolated  sheet  are  not  in 
said  chronological  order.  The  dates  written  on  this  interpo- 
lated sheet  are  later  in  time  than  the  dates  of  entries  which 
are  made  upon  the  other  sheets  and  pages  of  said  book  which 
follow  it  in  said  book.  Said  Hunter,  in  whose  custody  said 
book  was  when  I  saw  and  examined  it  claimed  that  it  was  the 
original  book  of  records  which  had  been  kept  at  the  Mission 
of  San  Xavier  del  Bac  by  the  Jesuit  fathers,  and  that  the 
photographic  copies  of  parts  of  the  same  had  been  taken  since 


82       SURVEYOR  general's  report. 

said  book  had  come  into  his  possession,  and  he  stated  to  me 
that  said  sheet  of  paper  had  been  inserted  into  said  book  since 
it  first  came  into  his  possession,  and  whileit  was  temporarily  in 
the  care  of  James  Addison  Rcavis,  one  of  the  claimants  herein 
who  had  borrowed  said  book  from  him — said  Hunter — in  the 
year  1882  by  misrepresentation  and  deceit,  and  kept  it  for 
three  (3)  days  and  that  during  said  time  there  was  inserted 
into  it  the  sheet  containing  the  entries  relied  on  by  the  claim- 
ants in  this  matter,  and  said  Hunter  further  informed  me  that 
within  afewdtiys  after  returning  said  book  said  Reavis  appeared 
before  him  and  produced  his  photographic  copies  of  parts  of 
said  book,  similiar  to  those  filed  herein,  and  demanded  that  he 
— said  Hunter — should  certify  to  their  correctness,  but  that 
he — said  Hunter — refused  to  make  any  certificate  on  account 
of  said  fraudulent  interpolation.  The  above  and  foregoing 
testimony  having  been  given  by  the  witness  Thomas  H.  Mc- 
Mullin  at  the  time  and  place  and  before  the  Surveyor  General 
as  above  stated  but  not  then  taken  down  nor  reduced  to 
writing,  the  same  is  now  here  written  out  in  full  correctly  on 
the  foregoing  pages  and  reverified  by  the  said  witness  who  has 
signed  his  name  hereto  and  who  does  hereby  certify  that  the 
above  and  foregoing  is  a  correct  transcript  of  his  testimony. 

[Signed]  Thos.  H.  McMullin. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  12th    day  of  October, 

A.  D.  1889,  And  I  certify  that  Thos.  H.  McMullin  is  the 

identical  person  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  transcript. 

J.  H.  Carpenter, 

[seal]  Notary  Public- 

Department  of  the  Interior,     Before  the  Surveyor   General  of 

the  United  States  in  and  for  the  Territory  of  Arizona,  at 

Tucson  in  said  Territory.     In  the  matter  of  the  so-called 

Peralta  Land  Grant  claim. 

Hon.  Lewis  Wolfley,  being  first  duly   sworn,   testified    as 
follows: 

Question  by  the  Surveyor  General — What  is  your  name 
and  occupation? 


SORVEYOK  OENEHAL'S  REPORT.  83 


Answer — My  name  is  Lewis  Wolfley,  and  I  am  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  Territory  of  Arizona. 

Question  by  the  Surveyor  General. — Do  you  know  R.  F- 
Hunter,  who  resides  at  225  East  Capital  street,  Washington, 
D.  C.  ? 

Answer. — I  do. 

Question  by  the  Surveyor  General. — Have  you  ever  had 
any  conversation  with  him  regardinjjj  the  so-called  Peralta 
Land  Grant  Claim? 

Answer. — I  have, 

Question  by  the  Surveyor  General. — Will  you  please 
state  in  full  any  conversation  you  have  had  with  Mr.  Hunter 
in  connection  with  this  claim? 

Answer. — I  was  in  Washington  during  the  spring  of  1889 
and  met  R.  F.  Hunter,  and  conversed  with  him  about  the 
Peralta  claim.  Hunter  stated  to  me  that  he  knew  it  was  a 
fraud,  and  that  if  he  was  retained  he  would  show  that  it  was 
a  fraud.  He  further  stated  he  had  possession  of  the  old  record 
books  of  the  San  Xavier  Mission,  and  that  some  time  ago  he 
loaned  them  to  one  Reavis.  That  after  Reavis  had  possession 
of  these  books  he  returned  the  same  to  Hunter,  who  on  exams 
ing  the  books  discovered  that  a  sheet  of  paper  had  been 
surreptitiously  inserted  in  the  book,  relating  to  the  Peralta 
claim.  Mr.  Hunter  told  me  he  would  make  an  affidavit  to 
this  effect. 

[Signed]  Lewis  Wolfley. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  fifteenth  day 
of  October  1889. 

Royal  A.  Johnson, 
U.  S.  Surveyor  General  for  the  District  of  Arizona. 

Notarial  Record  of  the  Forged  Deed. 

Herewith  is  the  notarial  record  of  the  at  present  changed 
deed  as  it  originally  appeared  (by  which  Reavis  originally 
claimed  the  Peralta  grant)  taken  by  J.  W.  Bruraagin,  notary 
public  of  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  from  the  records  of  F.  J.  Thi- 
bault  the  deceased  notarv  before  whom    the    forgfed    deed    was 


84  SURVEYOR  GENERAl/S    REPORT. 

originally  acknowledged  by  F.  A.  Massol.  The  deed  at 
present  reads:  "This  indenture  made  the  twenty-second  day 
of  May  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty^seven, 
between  F.  A.  Massol  of  the  city  and  county  of  Sacramento 
and  state  of  California,  party  of  ihe  first  part,  for  George  M. 
Willing  of  the  Territory  of  Arizona,  by  virtue  of  a  general 
power  of  attorney  dated  May  11th,  1864  and  J.  A.  Reavis  of 
the  second  part." 

According  to  the  record  the  deed  originally  read 
"Between  F.  A.  Massol  of  the  city  of  Sacramento  and  state  of 
California,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  George  M.  Willing  of  the 
Territory  of  Arizona,  of  the  second  part.'' 

The  deed  itself  plainly  shows  on  its  face  where  the  word 
"and''  was  erased  and  the  word  *[for"  inserted,  then  all  that 
part  in  the  deed  as  it  now  appears  after  the  words  "Territory 
of  Arizona"  was  deliberately  addeil  to  the  deed  to  fit  an  old 
power  of  attorney  from  George  M.  Willing  to  F.  i^.  Massol 
dated  May  11th,  1864,  and  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  title 
in  Reavis  to  complete  his  original  chain.  It  will  be  borne  in 
mind  that  Reavis  had  possession  of  Dr.  Willing's  papers. 
Even  the  power  of  attorney  alleged  to  have  been  executed  by 
Willing  to  Massol  dated  in  1864  was  never  acknowledged  by 
Willing  but  it  was  left  until  March  12th,  1883,  and  was  then 
acknowledged  by  one  of  the  witnesses.  At  this  date  Williug's 
papers  were  accessible  to  claimant  Reavis. 

Whatever  may  be  the  status  of  this  power  of  attorney  as 
to  its  validity  is  unimportant  as  the  deed    was  forged    to  fit  it. 

Royal  A,  Johnson, 

U.  S.  Surveyor  General. 
State  of  California^  ^ 

City    and    County    of     ^ 
San  Francisco  ) 

-    I,  J.  W.  Brumagim,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  said  city 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT 


85 


and  county  residing  therein, 
do  certify  that  the  following: 

1867 
May  24 


duly    commissioned  and   sworn 


'c: 


W.  H.  Allen  to 

George  M.  Willing, 

Deed  May  22—67  $500  Bradshaw  Dist. 

John  P.  Logan, 
Power  of  At.  May  22- 

-67, 

F.  A.  Massol  to 

George  M.  Willing 

Deed  May  22—67  $500  Bradshaw 

John  P.  Logan 
Power  of  At.  May  22- 

-67. 

Is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  the  record    from   the  book 
of  F.  J.  Thibault  a  notary  public,  now   in  my  possession. 
Done  at  the  request  of  Fen  Massol. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  sent  my  hand  and 
affixed  my  official  seal  at  my  office  in  the  city  and  county  of 
San  Francisco  State  of  California  this  twenty-fifth  day  of 
October,  A.  D.  1889.  J.  W.  Bruraagin, 

[seal]  Notary  Public. 

Argument  of  Clark  Churchill  Agrainst 
.  ,  the  Claim. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 
Before  the  U.  S.  Surveyor  General  for  Arizona. 
In  the  matter  of  the  claim  of  one 
self  styled  Sofia  Loreta  Micaela 
de  Maso  Reavis  and  James  Ad^ 
dison  Reavis  of  lands  under 
the  pretended  "Peralta  Grant." 

I 
The  burden  of  proof  IS  upon   the  claimants.     They  must 
show  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Hon.  Surveyor  General: 

1st.  That  a  grant  was  in  fact  legally  made  to  Miguel 
Peralta. 

2nd.     That  they  (the  claimants)  are  the   owners  of  that 


86  SURVEYOR  general'sreport. 

grant.     T  take  it  forgranted  that   the   foregoing   propositions! 
will  not  be  denied  by  any  one. 

II 

No  legal  evidence  has  been  presented  tending  to  show 
that  any  such  grant  was  ever  made,  and  of  course,  it  no  grant 
was  ever  made  to  Peralta,  then  all  the  claims  and  pretences 
of  these  claimants  to  the  effect  that  first  one  of  them  had 
acquired  Peralta's  alleged  title  by  mesne  conveyances,  and  of 
the  other  that  she  is  the  lineal  descendant  and  sole  heir,  and 
hence  inherited  the  title,  go  for  naught,  and  the  investigations 
of  the  papers  offered  in  support  of  those  pretences  become 
material  only  in  so  far  as  their  inconsistencies  and  fraudulent 
and  spurious  character  throw  light  upon  the  character  of  these 
claimants  themselves. 

The  following  recapitulation,  analysis  and  comparisons  of 
the  documents  presented  in  this  case  by  the  claimants  will  show 
the  absurdity  and  groundless  character  of  this  claim. 

Ex.  A  is  a  pretended  printed  cedula  of  the  King  of  Spain 
Fernando  VI,  supposed  to  be  dated  and  made  Dec.  20th,  1748, 
pretended  to  have  been  presented  to  the  "Cama  del  Real  Santo 
Tribunal  de  la  Inquisicion  de  Mexico." 

Then  follows  the  pretended  report  of  the  Inquisitors  to 
the  viceroy,  dated  at  Mexico  Oct.  10th,  1757. 

This  report  is  to  the  effect  that  ''Francisco  Paner"  (the 
true  name  being  Paver)  of  San  Javier's  Missions  Padre  Garcia, 
another  missionary  and  the  Bishop  of  Nuevo  Mexico,  Tameron, 
have  given  testimony  "That  they  have  no  interest  in  the  con- 
cession, and  that  said  concession  is  quite  popular  and  caused 
many  friends  among  the  Pi  mas  and  we  have  determin<xl  to 
recommend  the  granting  of  it." 

These  priests  could  very  well  say  they  had  no  interest, 
since  by  law  the  ecclesiastics  were  then  prohibited  from  taking 
up  land. 

Then  follows  a  general  pretended  approval  of  the  grant 
describing  it  as  being  of  300  square  leagues,  to  enclose  the  Gila 
river,  which  concession  shall  be  located  to  the  north  of  San 


SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT.  87 


Javier  in  Pimeria  Alta  iu  the  Vireiyno  of  New  Spain,  and  to 
include  rivers,  minerals,  etc.,  etc,,  signed  by  Augustin  de  Ahu- 
mada  y  Villalon.  Marquis  de  Amarillos,  dated  Jany.  3,  1758. 

Then  follows  a  pretended  order  or  direction  to  Peralta 
and  to  Father  Paner  (Paver?)  to  locate  the  concession  as  com- 
manded; this  is  signed  only  with  a  flourish  or  pretended  rubric- 
Then  Peralta  locates  in  a  general  way  his  concession,  and 
adopts  a  piano  or  map  of  it.  (In  printed  copy  this  is  dated 
13  May,  1758.  Tn  the  testamentary  document  there  is  no 
date.)  Ordered,  signed  and  sealed  by  Peralta,  in  the  presence 
of  Paner,  and  the  witnesses  Vega  and  Galvez. 

Next  comes  a  pretended  petition  of  Peralta  to  the  King 
Carlos  III  to  confirm  the  grant  of  Fernando  VI,  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  a  pretended  short  assent  of  confirmation,  dated  Jan. 
22nd  of  1776;  signed  by  the  king  and  countersigned  by 
Antonio  Ventura  de  Taranco,  and  directed  to  the  Holy  Inquis- 
tion  of  Mexico  of  New  Spain. 

This  Ex.  A  was  filed  in  this  office  March  27th,  1883. 
Next  of  the  photograph  and  documents  filed  in  this  office  Sept. 
2nd,  1887. 

This  photograph,  supposed  to  be  taken  from  an  original 
copy  found  in  a  will  of  Peralta,  in  the  archives  of  a  notary 
public — now  deceased — differs  from  the  Ex.  A  having  a  whole 
sentence  more  and  several  words  added  into  the  document. 
Again  it  has  some  words  less  than  Ex.  A.  Hence  it  cannot 
be  said  that  either  is  a  copy  of  the  other. 

Botl)  documents  contain  apocriphal  words,  or  in  other 
words  t\ipy  make  use  of  language  which  was  not  in  use  in  1748 
and  some  which  are  not  and  never  have  been  Spanish. 

I  will  now  note  some  of  the  various  differences  and  mis- 
takes and  errors  of  language  which  appear  to  me,  viz: 

1st.  Ex.  A  lacks  the  following  words  on  the  3rd.  line 
after  "cuidad  de  Mexico  Por  cuanto,  en  atencion  a  los  meritos 
y  servicios,  por  tanto  mando  al  Commandante  General"  also 
the  words  "Capitan  de  Dragones."  Which  are  contained  in 
the  photograph. 

2nd.     The  expression  "Por  parte  de  Senor"  found  in  both 


88 


the  photo  and  Ex.  A  was  not  Spanish  in  1748,  nor  has  it  ever 
been  to  this  date;  the  true  expression  is  "Por  Parte  DelSenor." 

3d  The  phrase  "Fueron  aprobodas"  is  not  Spanish:  it 
should  be  "Que  Fueron  Aprobadas",  this  mistake  is  made  in 
Ex.  A  and  in  photograph.  This  error  would  not  be  made  by 
any  person  who  was  born  a  Spaniard,  it  is  only  possible  to  be 
made  by  a  foreigner,  and  neither  the  King  nor  any  of  his 
ministers  were  foriegners  in  1748. 

4th  In  Ex  A  is  found  the  expression  "Fuero  Militar," 
which  is  proper,  but  in  the  photo,  this  appears  as  "Fuero  Tri- 
bunal." There  is  no  such  thing  known  in  Spain  or  Mexico 
and  how  it  was  possible  for  Somoderille  to  present  to  the 
Kinff  such  a  document  to  sign  is  hard  to  conceive. 

5th.  In  both  copies  ',is  found  the  phrase  "y  para  la 
recorapensa  de  grandes  y  valiosos  servicios,  tambien  para  el 
modo  de  conducir  prontamente  las  batallos  importantes 
en  el  servicio  del  Rey." 

Here  the  word  para  should  be  por.  The  mistake  is  very 
commonly  made  by  Americans  speaking  Spanish. 

The  last  part  of  the  sentence  "en  el  servicio  del  Rey"  is 
good  Spanish,  but  very  contrary  to  the  habit  of  the  Spanish 
monarchs,  and  there  is  not  a  single  cedula,  where,  in  speaking 
such  a  phrase  it  is  not  rendered  so,  "en  mi  servicio." 

6th.  "Yo  el  Rey  por  este  mandato  y  decreto  publico." 
This  phrase,  though  not  very  bad  Spanish,  is  contrarj^  to  all 
customs  of  the  kings  of  Spain  in  making  their  cedulas.  There 
is  not  one  cedula  where  the  king  repeats  his  name  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  body  of  it,  or  that  he  uses  "este  mandato  y  decreta 
publico"  because  the  kings  of  Spain  were  so  strongly  impressed 
with  their  power  that  they  considered  their  every  word  a 
supreme  law;  they  knew    that  a  cedula  was  a  law    and    they 

needed  not  to  say  "this  public  command"or  any  other  expression 
to  increase  the  force  of  the  cedula. 

7th.  "Recomiendo  el  exmo."  is  bad  Spanish;  it  should 
be  "Recomiendo  al  exmo." 

8th.  "Seran  Situado"  found  in  Ex.  A  and  photograph. 
If  this  sentence  refers  to  leguds  it  should  be  "Seran  Situados." 


SUKVKYOK  GENEUAI/S    REPORT.  81) 


If  it  refers  to  the  concession  it  should  he  "Sera  situada"  as  it 
is  here  it  is  a  verb  and  participle  neither  of  which  agrees  with 
.  each  other  or  with  the  subject.  This  mistake  would  not  have 
been  made  even  by  the  illiterate  portion  of  the  lowest  Mexican 
people;  and  such  is  only  possible  to  a  foreigner  who  stammers 
Spanish,  let  alone  the  king  of  Spain. 

9th.  "Y  ser  tal  forma,"  is  not  Spanish;  it  should  be  "y 
ser  de  tal  forma." 

10th.  In  Ex.  A,  "que  no  molesto/'  in  photo,  "que  no 
moleste." 

11th  "Exmo  Yirrey  de  Espana"  in  Ex.  A;  in  photo- 
graph "Exnio  Virrey  de  Nueva  Espana." 

12th.  "Sin  embargo  incluir"  is  not  Spanish,  it  should  be 
"sin  embargo  que  incluyan."  This  mistake  is  found  in  Ex.  A 
and  Photo. 

13th.  In  Ex.  A  "Declara  el  titulo"  in  Photo.  "Declaro 
el  titulo." 

14th.  In  Ex.  A  and  in  Photo,  the  ending  is  "Asi  lo 
proveyo,  mando  y  firmo." 

15th.  The  king  commenced  speaking  in  the  first  person 
and  ends  in  the  third  person.  But  the  u.-^e  of  the  words 
"proveyo  mando  y  firmo"  are  not  used  in  a  single  cedula  of 
the  kings  of  Spain  from  the  time  of  Ferdinand  and  Ysabellato 
the  revolution  of  1820.  They  never  admonish  the  person 
addressed  that  they  so  "provide,  command  and  signed"  but 
occasionally  they  end  their  cedulas  thus,  "por  ser  asi  mi 
voluntai"  because  such  ism v  will.  See  Pandectas  Mexicanes, 
V.  Ill,  page  534  to  536,  Cedulas  of  1746  and  1805. 

17th.     The  seal  in  Ex.  A  was  not  in  use  in  1748. 

18th.  The  authentication  in  Ex.  A  is  contrary  to  the 
customs  of  the  times  in  1748.  In  all  the  cedulas  I  have 
examined  up  to  1810  after  the  signature  of  the  king  "Yo  el 
Rey"  is  written  "Por  Mandado  del  Rey"  or  "Por  JVIadado  del 
R«y  nuestro  Senor"  so  and  so  is  the  name  of  the  Secretary  of 
State. 

The  exj)ressi()n  "I  the  minister  so  and  sojuit  the  great 
seal  of  state"  is  not  found  in  any  documents  of  state  or  cedulns 
of  the  kings  of  Spain  up  to  1800. 

"El  sello  Real"  was  in   use  sometimes,  that  is  "the  royal 


90  SURVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

seal."     The  great  seal  of  state  is  borrowed  by  the  concoctor  of 
these  papers  from  his  English  legal   knowledge. 

19th.  In  both  Ex.  A  and  Photo,  is  found  an  entry 
beginning  with  "visitaron  y  refrendose  etc.,  etc."  The  whole 
sentence  is  barbarous  and  incomprehensible  to  Spanish  speak, 
ing  people,  but  the  claimants  pretend  that  it  means  that  "this 
grant  was  examined  and  countersigned  in  the  chamber  of  the 
Holy  Royal  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  of  Mexico,  for  proofs  of 
claimants  to  previous  grants."  The  absurdity  of  this  will 
appear  when  it  is  understood  that  this  statement  is  very  coolv 
signed  by  Somodeville,  who  at  the  time  is  minister  at  Madrid 
in  Spain,  not  in  Mexico  at  all. 

If  anybody  had  to  sign  this  statement  it  should  liave  been 
the  grand  inquisitor  of  Mexico  and  his  secretarv. 

Both  Ex.  A  and  the  Photo,  are  made  up  in  a  form  entirely 
different  from  any  cedula  of  the  kings  of  Spain.  The  Spanish 
used  is  a  barbarous  jargon,  and  has  more  of  the  English  idiom 
and  construction  than  of  Spanish  language.  The  mistakes 
above  pointed  out  are  l)ut  a  part  of  those  it  contains.  The 
author  of  this  cedula  appears  to  have  been  an  American  speak- 
ing bad  Californian  Spanish  of  the  present  day. 

The  claimant  first  presented  in  1883  Ex.  A  as  an  original 
copy  of  the  first  autograph  copy  of  the  King  Fernando  VI, 
which  having  been  passed  upon  by  the  inquisition,  the  viceroy 
and  had  been  taken  possesion  of  by  Peralta,  this  identical 
printed  copy  Ex.  A  is  claimed  to  have  been  presented  to  King 
Carlos  III  when  this  king  writes  this  remarkable  sentence  on  it: 

"Passo  ante  mi 

fechaen  Madrid 

a  dos  de  Decembre 

de  mill  setecientos 

y  Setenda  y  dos. 
Y6  el  Key. 


Countersigned  by  his  secretary's  signature,   Taraneo, 


SUKVEYOK  GENEKAL'S    KEPORT.  91 


It  is  very  remarkable  that  Taranco,  who  for  many  years 
served  Charles  the  III  as  prime  minister,  in  the  short  sentence 
above  written,  "Passo  ante  mi"  etc.,  etc.,  should  have  made 
three  mistakes.     I  will  translate  it. 

"Passed  before  me 

"dated  in  Madrid 

"the  second  of  December 

"of  one  thousand  seven 

"hundred  and  seventy 

"two.  I  the  King." 

The  unfortunate  Taranco  wrote  passo  instead  of  "paso'' 
with  one  single  s;  he  wrote  Decembre  when  the  real  Spanish  is 
''Dieiemhre"  and  wrote  mill  when  it  should  be"mi^"  with  one  1. 

But  what  is  still  stranger  is  that  when  Somodeville  wrote 
the  original  cedula  he  had  also  two  I's  in  mil,  that  was  four- 
teen, years  before. 

By  looking  at  the  very  bottom  of  the  Ex.  A  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  leceipt  of  the  cedula  by  the  viceroy  of  Nueva 
Espana,  is  also  afflicted  with  weak  knowledge  of  Spanish,  and 
Contains  this  expression,  viz:  "Passo  mi,"  by  which  we  who 
speak  English  translate  it  thus:  "it  passed  me."  But  as  a 
Spanish  phrase,  the  word  passo  should  be  paso;  that  is,  one  s, 
and  accent  on  the  q;  and  the  preposition  po?' should  be  between 
the  two  words,  that  is,  "Paso  })or  mi,"  though  even  such  an 
expression  was  improper  for  the  case. 

For  this  reason  I  say  that  the  author  of  Ex.  A  was  an 
American  who  spoke  bad  Spanish. 

In  the  certificate  of  Lancaster,  appears  the  word  "Mandato- 
This  word  was  never  used  by  any  secretary  of  the  King  of 
Spain,  in  any  cedula  up  to  1815,  when  the  use  of  cedulas  was 
discontinued,  the  only  word  used  was  "Mandado," 

We  have  the  following  facts  evidently  apparent  from  Ex.  A. 

1st.     The  type  in  which  it  is  printed  is  modern. 

2nd.  The  language  is  not  Spanish  and  would  not  have 
been  produced  or  written  by  any  person  acting  as  amanuensis 
'to  the  king  in  1748  or  1776. 

3rd.     The  seal  of   the  king  it  bears  had  not  been  cast  and 


92  SURVEYOR    general's  report. 

was  not  in  existence  in  1748,  nor  in  1772  nor  in  1776,  accord 
ing  to  my  information. 

Yet  King  Charles  ITT  says  in  the  first  page  of  Ex.  A 
"passo  ante  mi,  etc.,  Dec.  2, 1772,  and  signs  it '  Yo  elRey'^ 

The  inference  is  plain,  either  King  Carlos  III 
arose  from  the  dead  to  sign  in  our  day,  or  some  per- 
son speaking  bad  Spanish  torged  his  name. 

The  sjjme  hand  who  signed  the  king's  name  in  the  first 
page,  forged  Charles  Ill's  name  on  the  last  page,  pretended  to 
have  been  done  in  1776. 

By  an  examination  it  is  apparent  even  to  the  inexperi- 
enced that  both  the  signatures  of  Charles  III  are  tracings;  and 
that  the  many  writings  in  Ex.  A,  pretended  to  have  been  done 
at  various  times  and  by  diflerent  persons  in  it,  are  the  \\ork  of 
the  same  hand. 

Take  for  instance  the  expression:  "Passo  mi"  at  the  bottom 
of  the  first  page  supposed  to  have  been  done  by  Juan  Francisco 
de  Guemes,  Viceroy  of  Nueva  Espana  ab«ut  1749-50. 

Then  take  the  'Passo  ante  mi"  supposed    to    have    been 
written  in  1772  by  the  secretary  of  the  King  Charles  the  Ill- 
Then  take  the  "Passo  ante  mi"  4th  page  s.'gned  by  a  sup- 
posed original  signature  and  flourish  of  Joseph  Avalos  and    of 
Agustin  Ant.  Cauxillos. 

All  these  passos  have  the  same  orthographical  mistakes, 
the  two  ss,  and  the  same  character  of  hand  writing,,  supposed 
to  have  been  written  by  different  persons  at  various  times 
between  1748  and  1772. 

This  Ex.  A  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  the  original  cedula 
and  to  contain  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  to  execute  the  will  of 
King  Fernando  VI.  The  two  last  pages  pretend  to  be  an 
original  petition  of  the  Caballero  de  los  Colorados  to  Charles 
III  to  confirm  his  grant. 

Then  follows  the  pretended  genuine  confirmation  by 
Charles  III  with  his  genuine  signature  countersigned  by  the 
secretary  Taranco,  and  then  it  says: 

"Al  Real  Santo  Tribunal  de  la  Ynquisicion  de  Mexico  de 


SURVEYOR  UENERAL'S  REPORT.  93 


Nueva  Espana"  which  means  "To  the  Royal  Holy  Tribunal  of 
the  Inquisition  of  Mexico  of  New  Spain." 

All  of  which  signifies  that  this  instrument,  after  being 
sanctioned  by  the  king,  was  returned  by  the  king  to  the 
Inquisition;  that  the  instrument,  executed  and  delivered,  should 
be  there  kept  as  a  testimony  of  the  fact  that  it  had  been  so 
executed.  Therefore  if  this  instrument  really  bears  the  sig- 
nature of  King  Charles  III,  it  has  no  business  in  the  hands  of 
the  claimant,  but  it  should  be  deposited  in  the  archives  of  the 
old  Inqusition  in  Mexico,  who  are  the  lawful  keepers  of  it,  and 
its  date  of  filing  should  be  noted  in  the  proper  book. 

This  instrument,  if  found  in  said  archives,  raio^ht  be 
presented  here  in  the  form  of  a  copy  of  it,  duly  authenticated 
by  the  keeper  of  such  records,  and  then  it  would  have  a  stand- 
ing before  the  government  of  the  United  States  for  consid- 
atiou. 

As  the  case  now  stands,  this  Ex.  A  appears  as  a  dislocated 
fragniQnt  from  the  parent  source;  and  what  that  source  is 
should  be  proven  first  by  the  claimant  against  the  government 
of  the  United  States  and  why  or  how  it  came  into  the  claim- 
ant's hands  without  due  authorization. 

An  attempt  is  made  to  authenticate  this  Ex.  A  by  a 
pretended  certificate  signed  by  President  Santa  Ana,  at  the 
bottom  of  the  last  page,  but  it  is  so  blotted  and  torn  that  it  is 
impossible  to  make  out  what  the  purport  of  the  authentication 
is.  It  appears  to  be  a  private  letter  of  Santa  Ana  without 
having  the  countersign  of  the  minister  of  foreign  relations  or 
the  seal  ot  state  ot  the  Republic  of  Mexico. 

Santa  Ana  does  not  say  either  that  Ex.  A  is  a  copy  or  an 
original  or  that  there  is  any  record  of  said  instrument  in  any 
archives  of  Mexico. 

Nor  is  President  Santa  Ana  the  proper  person  to  say  the 
document  is  a  copy  of  anything  in  the  archives  of  Mexico, 
because,  though  president  he  is  not  the  keeper  of  any  archives, 
and  his  declaration  would  not  be  proof  of  such  fact.  Nor  was  it 
within  the  scope  of  the  duties  or  customs  of  the    president    ot 


94 


SURVEYOR    GENERAL  S    REPORT. 


Mexico  to  sign  in  any  way  any  authentication  of  this  character. 
The  practice  was  for  the  keeper  of  the  proper  archives  to  cer- 
tify them,  and  for  the  secretary  of  state,  with  the  seal  to  certify 
to  the  official  character  of  the  keeper. 

To  more  fully  illustrate  the  inconsistency  of  the  several 
documents  filed  in  this  office,  which  are  alleged  to  prove  that  a 
royal  cedula  was  made  by  Ferdinand  VI,  the  following  copies 
of  each  are  so  arranged  in  parallel  columns  as  to  show  at  a 
glance  the  difference  between  them.  Of  course  if  they  ail 
relate  to  the  same  act  of  King  Ferdinand  they  should  be  all 
precisely  alike.  The  column  at  the  left  contains  the  copy 
found  in  the  pretended  will  or  testament  of  the  alleged  Peraltal 
the  middle  column,  the  printed  copy  and  the  right  hand  col- 
umn the  copy  in  the  photograph. 


TESTAMENTARY 
CEDULA. 


PRINTED 
CEDtl.A. 


PHOTOGRAPHED 
CEDULA. 


El  Rey  Virrey  Gov- 
ernador  y  Capitan 
General  de  las  Provin- 
cias  de  Nneva  Espana 
y  Presidente  de  mi 
Real  Audiencia  que 
reside  en  la  ciudad  de 
Mejico: 


por 
parte  de  fe^mor  Don 
Miguel  de  Peralta  de 
la  Cordoba  Capitan  de 
dragones  conforme  a 
la  suplica  de  la  Yn- 
quisician  Real  d  e 
Nueva  Espan-a  y  la 
recomendacion  del  con 
sulado  y  J  u  e  s  d  e 
Alzada?  fueion  apro- 
vadas  poresoGovierno 
y  llevadas  a  la  junta 
General  militar  y  en 
acuerdo  de  juicio  por 
conciliacion  del  Fuero 
Tribunal  y  en  consid- 
eracion  y  para  la  re- 
compensa   de    grandes 


El  Rey  Virrey  Gov- 
ernador  y  Capitan 
General  de  las  Provin- 
eias  de  Nueva  Espana 
y  Presidente  de  mi 
Real  Audiencia  que 
reside  en  la  ciudad  de 
Mexico. 


por 
parte  d  e  S  r.  Don 
Miguel  de  Per  dta  de 
la  '-ordoba  ^  *  * 
*  *  *  conforme  a 
la  suplica  de  la  Yn- 
quisicion  Real  de 
Nueva  Espana  y  la 
recomendacion  del  con 
sulado  y  Jues  de 
Alzadas  fueron  apro- 
vadas  por  ese  Govierno 
y  llevadas  a  la  junta 
General  militar  y  en 
acuerdo  de  juicio  por 
conciliacion  del  Fuero 
Militor  y  en  consid- 
eracion  y  para  la  re- 
compensa    de   grandt-s 


El  Rey  Virrey  Gov- 
ernador  y  C  a  p  i  t  a  » 
General  delas  Frovin- 
cias  de  Nueva  Espana 
y  Presidente  de  mi 
Real  Audiencia  que 
res  de  en  la  ciudad  de 
Mexico:  Por  cuanto 
en  atencion  a  los  raeri- 
tos  y  servicios  por  tan- 
to  mando  al  coman 
dante.  General  por 
parte  de  Senor  Don 
Miguel  de  Peralta  de 
la  Cordoba  Capitan  de 
dragones  conforme  a 
la  suplica  de  la  Yn- 
quisicion  Real  de 
Nueva  Espana  y  la 
recomendacion  del  con- 
sulado  y  Jues  de 
Alzados  fueron  ipro- 
vadas  por  eae  Govierno 
y  hevadas  a  la  junta 
General  militar  y  en 
acuerdo  de  juicio  por 
conci'iacion  del  Fuero 
Tribunal  y  en  consid- 
eracion  y  para  la  re- 
compensa    de  grandes 


SUKVEYUK      UK^JEKAL's    liEFUKT. 


95 


y    valioras      servicios 
tambien  para  el    modo 
de    conducir    pronta- 
mente  las  batallos  im- 
portantes  en  el  servicio 
d-el  Rey:     Yo   el    Eey' 
de   Espana    por     este 
mandato  y  decreto  pub- 
lico en  conformidad  a 
Ijs   costumbres   d«    la 
corona   recomiendo  el 
.e\mo  virrey  de  Nueva 
Espana  en  mi  nombre 
ortorgai  y  conceder  al 
Sr.      D.     Miguel     de 
Pei-alta  de    la  cordoba 
M  e  d  i  (1  a      C  o  m  u  u 
trescientas  leguas  cua- 
dradwsodie*  y   nuevo 
mil    Docientos    m  i  1- 
]iones  vans  ciiadrados 
de  tierra  seran  sitnado 
eii  septentrionales  del 
Vireino  de  Nueva  Es- 
pana y   ser    tal  fo-ma 
que    no  molesia    con- 
cessiones     antles,     sin 
embargo  incluir   todos 
las  tierras  aguas  y  cor- 
rientes   *   '••"    todos  las 
rainerales  y  todas  otras 
cor  as  pertenecientes: 
V  decliirj  el  tituU)  iiono 
rable    del    Sr  D    Mi- 
<,'uel  de   Peralta     *    * 
*      *      ser     cabal  lero 
de  los   Colorados   con 
Grandeza  asi  lo  prove 
yo,      Mandn    v    firino 
techa    en      .Vadrid     a 
veinte  de  Dicimbre  de 
Mil  setecientos  v  cuar 
enta  y  ocho  Fernanios 
Yo  el  Rey  con  snbrlca 
sjUo   de     Espana     Por 
manda     to     del      Rey 
rauestro  sryo  minestro 
y  decano    del     consejo 
de    estado  he    anotadj. 
aqiii  el    Sello  Grande 
de  Estado  D   Jose   de 
Carvajal   y    Lancaster. 
[2n.f  Forg-ery.) 


y  valioras  servicios 
tambien  para  el  modo 
de  conducir  pronta- 
mente  las  batalios  im- 
portantes  en  el  servicio 
del  Rey:  Yo  el  Rey 
de  Espana  por  este 
mandato  y  decreto  pub- 
lico en  conformidad  a 
las  costura^^re*  de  la 
corona  recomiendo  el 
exmo  Virrey  de  *  ^■ 
Espana  en  mi  nombre 
otorgai  y  conceder  al 
'Sr.  Don  Miguel  de 
Heralta  *  ■■  *  ^ 
M  e  d  i  d  a  coma n 
trescienta-'  lezuas  cua- 
drados         *         * 

*  *  *  19,200,000,- 
000  v-xras  cuadrados 
de  tierra  seran  situado 
en  septentrionales  del 
Vireino  de  Nueva  Es- 
pana y  sel  tal  forma 
que  no  molesto  con- 
cesiones  antes,  sin 
embargo  incluir  todas 
las  tierras  aguas  y  cor- 
rientes  *  *  todos  las 
minerales  y  todas  otras 
coras  pertenecient?s: 
y  declaivi'  el  titulo  bono 
rable  deKS";-  Don  Mi- 
guel de   Peralta     *     * 

*  *  ser  caballero 
de  las  Colorados     *    * 

*  *  asi  lo  prove 
vo,  Mando  y  iirmo 
fecha  en  Madrid  a 
veinte  de  Diciembre  de 
Mill  y  setecientos  y 
cuarenta  V  oclio  *  * 
Yo,  el  Rev        '"         * 

*  *      •    *  Por 

Manda  to  del  Rey 
nut'stfo  Sr  yo  ministro 
y  decana  del  consejo 
de  Estado  he  ancxado 
aqui  el  Sello  Grande 
de  Estado  Don  Jose  de 
Carvajal  y  Lancaster. 
(/.■/  Fortyry) 


y    valioras      servicios 
tambien  para  el'  modo 
de    conducir    pronta- 
mente  las  batallos  im- 
portantes  en  el  servicio 
del   Rey:     Yo  el    Rey 
de  Espana     por    este 
mandato  y  decreto  pub- 
lic- en  conformidad  a 
los  costunbres    de   ia 
corona  recomiendo   el 
exmo  Virrey  de  Nueva 
Espana  en  mi  nombre 
otorgary   conceder   al 
Senor  Don  Miguel  de 
Peralta  de  la  cordoba 
Medida  comde  CaatiUon 
trescientas  lezuas  cua- 
drados o  dies  y  nueve 
mil    Docientos     mil- 
liones  varas  cuadrados 
de  tierra  seran  situado 
en  septentrionales  del 
Vereino  de  Nueva  Es- 
pana y   ser  tal    forma 
que   no   molest?    con- 
cesiones     antes,      sin 
embargo  incluir  todas 
las  tierras  aguas  y  cor- 
rientes    y    todos     1  a  s 
minerales  y  todas  otras 
c; '  •  r  a  s    pertencientes: 
y  declaivel  titnlo  bono 
rable  del  S«c7r  Don  Mi 
guel  de  Peralta   de   la 
Cordoba  ser   caballero 
de    las  Colorados   con 
Grandeza  asi  lo   prove 
yo,     Mando    y     firmo 
fecba   en     Madrid      a 
veinte  de  Dicimbre  de 
Mill    y   setecientos   y 
cuarenta  v  ocho    *     * 
Yo  el  ReV     *        *     •■ 

Mtmda  to  del  Rey 
S7'  Senor  yo  ministro 
V  decaijo  del  consejo 
de  Estado  lie  anotjdo 
aqni  el  Sello  Grande 
de  Estado  Don  Jose  de 
Carvajal  y  Lancaster 
{~rd    Forrery) 


96  SURVEYOR  GENERAI/S  REPORT. 

The  foregoing  parallel  copies:  the  printed,  the  photographed 
and  .the  testamentary  cedula  filed  in  this  office  present  a  Dar 
winian  development  towards  the  perfection  of  the  forgery 
though  the  successive  corrections  are  not  always  an  im'prove- 
ment  on  the  printed  copy,  which  was  filed  first. 

For  instance,  ths  printed  copy  contains  the  words  "Fuero 
Militar"  which  are  very  proper.  The  other  copies  make  it 
"Fuero  Trlbunar  a  barbarism  having  no  meaning  in  the 
Spanish  language.  Notice  the  word  "Molesto"  this  word  is 
tonnd  in  the  printed  copy  as  "molesto"  which  translated 
means  "I  molest,"  in  the  testamentary  copy  it  is  rendered 
'•Molesta"  which  means  "he  molests,"  and  the  last  development 
is  found  in  thg  photo  thus  "Moleste''  wuich  means  "that  he  may 
not  molest."  This  is  an  improvement,  for  it  means  "that  the 
concession  may  not  molest"  other  concessions. 

The  printed  copy  has  the  word  "declara"  "he  declares,"  a 
very  improper  expression  for  the  king  to  use,  as  he  commences 
speaking  in  the  first  person;  but  the  other  copies  mend  it  by 
putting  the  proper  tense  "dcclaio"  "I  declare." 

It  is  evident  that  when  writing  the  pretended  will  of  el 
Sr.  Don  Miguel  de  Peralta  y  Si\nchez,  Ex.  A  is  the  instrument 
alluded  to  as  the  original,  as  appears  by  examining  article  6th 
of  that  testament,  as  it  refers  to  it,  beginning  with  the  frontice 
page  thus  a  cross,  red  sealing  wax,  and  a  piece  of  white  paj)er 
where  appears  to  have  been  a  seal.  Libro  que  solo  sirve  de 
apuntar  etc.,  etc.,  and  so  it  goes  on  to  describe  minutely 
the  printed  copy  vvith  every  flourish  and  pretended  seal  on  it, 
only  that  a  few  words  are  added  or  changed  with  or  without 
success  to  better  the  meaning  of  the  cedula. 

In  the  printed  cedula  and  in  a  corresponding  place  in  the 
statement  or  copy  in  the  testament  of  Peralta  y  Sanchez  we 
find  in  the  one  these  words,  "del  padre  Exmo  Sr  Tameron  Obispo 
de  Nuevo  Mexico".  In  the  testament  this  is  rendered  so,  "del 
padre  exm  Sr  Tameron  Obispo  de  Guardiana,  y  Guliacan  y 
Nuevo  Mexico." 

The  persons  who  are  supposed  to  speak  here  are  the  grand 
inquisitors,  ecclesiastics  of  a  very  high  degree,  and  who  should 


SUKVEYUK  GENERAL'S  KEPOKT.  97 

have  known  the  proper  address  for  a  bishop,  yet  they  use  the 
expression  "Exrao"  that  is  "his  excellency"  which  is  entirely 
a  civil  dignity  while  a  bishop's  title  is  "Su  Senoria"  and  in 
1757  they  had  great  care  to  use  correct  titles;  yet  these  grand 
Inquisitors  did  not  know  the  title  of  a  bishop. 

Of  the  Testaments. 

These  two  instruments  are  written  in  the  same  peculiar  bad 
Spanish  of  Ex.  A  and  the  photograph.  Thesteryotyped  begin- 
ning of  them  both  are  correct  enough  and  must  have  been  copied 
trom  some  form  book,  or  old  wills,  but  the  moment  the  testators 
come  to  the  business  on  hand  to  inject  into  the  body  of  the 
wills  the  pretended  grant,  the  Caballero  de  los  Colorados 
Grandee  of  Spain  and  his  son  Miguel  de  Peralta  y  Sanchez, 
suddenly  lose  all  control  of  the  Spanish  language  and  begin 
to  speak  California  cow-boy  jargon. 

The  Caballero  de  los  Colorados  in  Art.  5  of  his  will  though' 
he  speaks  throughout  in  the  first  person,  when  he  mentions 
the  grant  of  three  hundred  leagues  says,  speaking:  of  this  pre- 
tended grant  "which  was  granted  to  Don  Miguel  de  Peralta  de 
la  Cordoba  y  Caballero  de  los  Colorados"  as  if  this  person  was 
somebody  else  and  nott'>e  testator  himself.  The  will  is  signed 
by  the  testate r;  the  notary  says  he  did  so,  dated  Jany.  3. 1783. 
Then  follows  a  codicil  in  very  bad  Spanish,  in  which  the  name 
of  the  Caballero  de  los  Colorados  is  said  to  be  a  copy,  "es 
copia"  but  the  notary  and  all  the  witnesses,  the  Bishop  of 
Guatemala  and  the  heir  apparent,  "the  child"  Miguel  Peralta, 
join  wRh  genuine  signatures;  we  see  this  plainly,  because  the 
claimant  has  furnished  this  office  with  a  photographic  copy  of 
the  notary's  "minuta"  or  record. 

The  will  appears  to  have  been  made  in  Mexico  Jany.  3rd 
1783  before  a  notary,  Joseph  Avalos.  The  codicil  is  made  in 
Guadalajara,  before  a  great  number  of  witnesses  including  a 
bishop  and  a  judge.  The  question  arises,  how  did  all  these 
witnesses  si2:n  a  codicil  on  the  notarial  records  of  a  notarv  in 


98  SUKVEYUK  GEWJ^JKAl/S    KKrOKT. 

the  City  of  Mexico?  and    by    what   process    did    the    notarial 
records  of  a  Mexican  notary  get  transported  to  Madrid? 

And  what  force  can  a  record  that  belongs  in  Mexico  have 
when  found  in  a  foreign  country?  Even  if  Mexico  now 
belonged  to  Spain  this  record  would  not  probably  be  in  Madrid? 
and  could  not  be  authenticated  from  there,  so  as  to  entitle  it  to 
any  faith  or  credit. 

We  might  attribute  many  of  the  features  presented  here,  as 
the  mistakes  of  an  amanuensis,  but  the  claimant  has  furnished 
us  with  photographic  copies  of  the  very  record;  and  there 
appear  the  genuine  signatures  of  seven  witnesses,  among  them 
two  lawyers,  recited  as  being  known  for  their  truthfulness,  a 
judge  and  the  seal  of  his  office,  a  bishop,  who  is  of  course 
i;ifallible,  and  all  these  persons  say  they  signed  said  document 
on  Jany,  3rd,  1708?  Just  forty  years  before  this  pretended 
grant  is  dated.  But  there  is  nothing  wonderful  in  the  history 
of  this  alleged  Peralta  grant.  To  retrograde  fortv  years  is  not 
as  difficult  a  task  as  to  make  Ferdinand  the  VI  and  Charles  II [ 
and  all  the  grandees  and  dons  of  Spain  of  the  lust  century, 
speak  the  cow-boy  Spanish  of  California  of  our  day.  Napoleon 
said  it  and  Reavis  accomplished  it,  the  word  impossible  is  not 
in  his  dictionary. 

Tkere  vv*s  uo  law  in  existence  at  the  time,  viz:  1783,  thnt 
required  a  testament  to  be  made  before  a  notary,  see  Pandectos 
Espafia  Mexicano,  Vol.  Ill  Partida  6,  title  1,  page  596.  Nor 
had  the  said  notary,  by  any  law,  the  authority  to  enter  into 
his  records  a  copy  or  minutes  of  the  said  testament.  Nor  did 
such  entry  give  it  any  force. 

The  original  or  true  testament  of  which  the  Ex's  in  AAA 
&  BBB  are  supposed  to  be  copies,  should  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  claimant,  who  should  have  received  it  from  the  adminis- 
trators of  the  ancestors,  and  on  that  will  there  should  appear, 
under  the  certificate  of  the  judge,  where  the  Caballero  de  los 
Colorados  died,  that  the  witnesses  were  called,  examined,  and 
their  testimony  entered  on  the  will  itself,  or  attached  to  it,  and 
so  certified  by  the  judge,  the  will  should  have  been  given  to  the 
"Al-bacca."     A  note  of  everything  done,  and  the  testimony  of 


SUKVEYOK  GENERAL'S    KEPUKT.  99 


each  witness  signed  by  him,  and  all  countersigned  by  the  judge 
sh  )a!d  and  would  have  remained  in  the  records  of  the  court  if 
they  were  gea nine.  Hence  if  the  Caballero  de  los  Colorados 
died  at  Guadahijara  in  1788,  the  record  of  his  will  and  the 
opening  of  it  (what  we  call  the  probate  of  it)  should  be  found 
in  the  archives  of    the  judge  of   1st    instance  in  Guadalajara. 

See  Pandectas  Esp.  Mexicanos  Vol.  Ill,  Partida  6,  Title 
II,  pg,  608.  And  this  would  have  been  the  proper  record  to 
have  been  brought  here  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  will  and 
the  probation  of  it.  We  might  just  as  well  produce  the  notes 
from  the  minute  book  of  a  justice  of  the  peace  of  our  CHirts  to 
prove  the  will  of  any  person  in  Arizona. 

We  might  just  as  well  say  here  that  the  record,  or  nota>. 
torial  archives  of  the  notary  "Joseph  Avelas"  located  in  the 
City  of  Mexico  in  1783,  should  be  to  this  day  in  the  hands  of 
his  successor  in  office.  For  notaries  in  Spain  and  Mexico  in 
the  last  and  in  the  present  century,  eveii  today,  are  officers  of 
the  state  for  certain  purposes  only,  and  berond  fhese  purposes 
their  acts  are  without  authority,  and  their  records  are  not 
private  but  public  records,  which  are  transferred  to  the  suc- 
cess'^r  of  the  incumbent  after  his  death.  See  Pandectos  Spano 
Mexicanos,  Vol.  T,  page  414,  Laws  XXVI. 

The  notary  in  Spanish  countries  being  the  depositories  of 
local  transactions,  their  records  are  held  af6  public  for  their 
localities,  and  when  one  of  them  dies,  the  judge  immediately 
takes  possession  of  his  archives,  aud  keeps  them  sealed  till  a 
successor  is  appointed,  when  he  delivers  them  to  him,  setting  a 
certain  price  or  value  which  the  new  notary  has  to  pay  to  the 
family  of  the  deceased.     See  id — Law  XXV. 

I  cannot  see  then  how  the  records  of  a  Mexican  notary 
got  transferred  to  the  city  of  Madrid,  in  Spain. 

Of  the  Testament  of  Miguel  Peralta  de  la  Cordoba  y 
Sanchez.  This  testament  purports  to  have  been  written  by  the 
said  testator,  and  he  calls  himself  a  native  of  Campas  (a  little 
town  in  Sonora)  and  "residente  en  la  ictualidad,"  that  is  "now 


100  SDRVEYOR  general's  REPORT. 

residing"  in  the  city  of  Herraosillo,  and  this  expression  is  char 
acterized  by  bad  Spanish. 

The  evident  purpose  of  this  will  appears  to  have  been 
to  fix  the  family  of  the  present  alleged  Baroness  de  los  Colora- 
dos;  as  it  describes  in  broken  Spanish  (spoken  by  a  supposed 
native  of  Sonora,  and  son  of  a  Grandee  of  Spain)  the  birth  of 
Sophia  and  her  marriage  with  Maso;  then  both  conveniently 
die,  leaving  twins,  a  boy  whose  death  is  described  in  a  jargon 
resembling  Dutch,  leaving  Sophia  Loreta  Mecaela  Maso  y 
Peralta  de  la  Cordoba,  with  a  clear  field  to  inherit  alone  the 
Baronial  estate  of  Peralta.  Then  it  goes  on,  and  undertakes 
by  his  own  declarations  to  prove  the  great  Peralta  grant,  by 
copyinor  the  whole  of  Ex.  A  only  that  there  are  some  few 
changes  made  in  order  to  make  it  better  as  herein  above  noted. 
This  will  is  made  out  at  Hermosillo,  but  like  everything  else 
in  this  pretended  Peralta  grant,  a  notary  of  San  Francisco  is 
made  to  officiate  as  the  attesting  oflSoer,  without  witnesses, 
dated  Jan.  2nd,  1863. 

This  alleged  Peralta  grant  is  full  of  surprises.  An  ordi- 
nary mortal  would  have  had  his  will  authenticated  by  resi- 
dents of  the  place  where  he  is.  Mr.  Peralta  gets  a  notary  of 
San  Francisco  to  do  it. 

Again,  this  alleged  Peralta,  appears  at  the  "Villa  de 
Madrid,"  before  another  notarv — Bernardo  Diaz  de  Antonana 
(as  we  might  say  the  village  of  New  York)  and  makes  a  codi"* 
cil,  marked  as  Article  11th,  and  in  worse  Spanish  than  any 
prior  attempt,  reiterating  the  fact  that  the  present  claimant 
provides  that  the  Countess  Sophia,  etc.,  etc.,  is  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  Peralta  property. 

The  notary  here  says  that  the  original  will  and  papers 
and  maps  were  sent  to  the  administrator  appointed,  to-wit,  to 
Antonio  Pablo  Peralta,  of  San  Bernardino,  California,  and 
that  he,  the  said  notary,  kept  copies  of  all  of  said  papers. 

This  will,  as  it  comes  before  this  office  as  to  the  notarial 
record,  etc.,  etc.,  is  subject  to  the   same  remarks    herein  above 


SURVEYOR    general's    REPORT.  101 

made  as  to  that  of  the  Caballero  de  los  Colorados  himself. 

However  this  third  paper  brings  out  some  new  features  of 
importance.  In  the  prior  will,  this  same  testator  Miguel 
Peralta  de  U  Cordoba,  signs  the  codicil  with  his  own  hand, 
though  he  is  called  "nino,''  child.  That  was  in  1788.  Now 
he  makes  his  will  and  the  notary  declares  that  the  old 
gentleman,  in  April  1 1th  of  1865,  was  84  years  of  age.  By 
an  easy  calculation  this  testator  appears  to  have  been  only 
five  years  old  in  1788,  when  his  signature  indicates  an  old 
practiced  hand.  For  we  hnve  his  photographic  copy  as  fur- 
nished by  claimant  on  file  in  this  office. 

It  appears  then  that  the  original    will    is    somewhere    on 
this  continent,  and  it  should  be  produced. 

Of  the  testimony  presented  by  the  photograph  of  two  pages 
of  a  book  of  records  of  the  Mission  of  San  Javier  del  Bac. 

These  photos  show  on  their  face  that   they    are   forgeries, 
interpolated  in  said  book  by  interested  parties: 

1st.     Because    the    handwriting  is  entirely  different  and 
niadein  different  ink  and  with;a  steel  pen. 


X  i^J- 


2nd.  Because  the  said  inscription 
begins  with  the    Jesuit    monogram 

which  to  use  was  tantamont  to  being  thrown  into  prison  in  1788, 
because  Father  Paner  (Paver)  was  in  1767  expelled  from 
Spanish-America  and  Spain  lo  Italy,  and  it  would  have  been 
death  for  him  to  be  at  San  Javier  del  Bac  in  1788.  See 
Bancroft's  History  of  Mexico  Northern  States  Vol.  XV; 
pages  549-580.  The  Jesuits  left  Souora  in  the  beginning  of 
1768,  see  page  578. 

3rd.  The  testimony  of  Thomas  H.  McMulIen  shows 
that  he  has  seen  and  examined  the  original  book  of  parts  of 
which  these  photographs  were  made,  and  that  the  page  or 
r^heet  upon  which  the  entry  is  made,  that  the  claimant  relies 
upon,  lias  been  interpolated  since  the  book  was  bound,  that 
the  paper  is  entirely  different  fVom    that    made  use  of  in    the 


102  SURVEYOR  GENERAL'S  REPORT. 

remainder  of  the  book. 

~  This  alleged  Peralta  grant  was  not  made  or  executed 
in  the  forms  and  in  the  manner  required  by  the  customs 
and  laws  of  the  times  1748  to  1776. 

Though  the  kings  of  Spain  were  absolute  monarchs  at  that 
^time,  yet  in  order  to  transact  the  business  of  so  vast  an  empire 
hey  themselves  established  certain  rules  and  regulations,  cer- 
tain channel  and  ministers  to  carry  out  their  will  and  govern 
their  dominions. 

For  an  instance,  any  order  the  king  made,  signed  by  his 
name  "Yo  el  Rey"  had  the  force  of  law  all  over  the  Spanish 
empire  yet  such  a  document  in  Spain  would  have  had  no  force  if 
it  was  not  countersigned  by  his  prime  minister. 

In  the  government  of  his  American  possessions  the  king 
of  Spain  made  the  Laws  1st,  2nd  and  3rd  Title  I,  Book  2nd 
"de  la  Recompilacion  de  ludias"  and  law  40  Title  I,  Book  20 
of  the  **Nueva  Recompilacion"  which  laws  provide  that  no 
decree,  law,  order  or  cedula,  made  by  the  king  should  have 
any  force  or  effect  in  the  American  Colonies  belon^jfing  to 
Spain,  unless  such  law,  decree,  order  or  cedula  was  adopted  by 
the  "Consejo  de  Indias"  and  published  by  that  body  where  it 
was  intended  to  take  effect. 

See  alio  Bancroft's  History  of  Mexico,  Vol.  XI.  page  51 9. 

See  also  Hall's  Mexican  Law,  page  13.  Here  at  the  end 
of  a  cedula  of  the  king  it  has  these  words  "Dated  in  Pardo  the 
1st  of  Nov.  1591.  1,  the  King:.  By  order  of  the  king  our  lord 
Juan  de  Harrar.  By  decree  of  the  12th  of  March  1593,  it 
was  ordered  that  the  foregoing  royal  cedula  should  be  obeyed 
and  published.  And  Bancroft,  in  the  page  above  quoted  says: 
<'Its  jurisdiction  (the  council  of  the  Indies)  extended  to  every 
department,  civil,  military,  ecclesiastic  and  commercial,  even 
the  Pope  having  here  to  submit  for  approval  his  bulls  and 
briefs  concerning  the  Indies." 

But  where  is  this  pretended  cedula  of  the  alleged  Peralta 
referred  for  consideration  and  approval?     To  the   Chamber  of 


SURVEYOR  GENERAL'S    REPORT.  103 


the  Holy  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  of  the  City  of  Mexico! 
It  is  assumed  that  Peralta  was  so  great  a  man  and  his  privileges 
were  so  great  that  the  king  resolved  to  break  through  the 
"Customs  of  the  Crown"  and  all  existing  laws,  pass  over  the 
heads  of  his  council  of  the  Indies,  which  superintended  even 
the  commands  of  the  Popes,  and  ordered  the  viceroy  to  grant 
the  land;  that  in  spite  of  the  laws  above  quoted,  by  which  the 
king's  command  of  their  viceroys  and  governors  of  all  his 
dominions  in  A^merica,  that  under  no  circumstances  evftn  his 
own  orders  should  be  respected  or  obeyed  unless  the  same  had 
received  the  sanction  of  the  "Consejo  de  Indias"  in  the  face  of 
all  these  laws  and  customs,  the  viceroy  did  give  effect  to  the 
cedula  in  favor  of  Peralta.  And  yet  the  name  of  this  pretended 
great  man  is  not  found  in  the  history  of  Spain  or  Mexico. 
Then  again  this  cedula  it  is  claimed,  was  first  approved  by  the 
Council  of  the  Inquisition,  who  never  did  have  the  power  to 
receive,  consider  or  approve  cedulas  of  the  king. 

Then  again  it  is  claimed  that  this  same  council  of  the 
Holy  Inquisition  took  upon  itself  the  task  of  finding  the  loca^ 
tion  of  the  pretended  grant  and  that  upon  its  recommendation 
the  viceroy  ordered  Peralta  himself  with  the  help  of  a  Jesuit 
priest  to  go  and  locate  and  survey  the  said  grant  to  suit  his 
own  exclusive  will  and  fancy. 

And  where  did  Peralta  locate  his  three  hundred  leagues? 
Why,  it  is  claimed  that  he  went  to  Sonora,  to  the  Prineria 
Alta,  outside  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain, 
and  located  them.  And  that  the  viceroy  granted  them  to  him. 
And  it  is  further  claimed  that  all  this  chain  of  blunders 
is  finally  approved  by  Charles  III  in  1776  and  referred  for 
record  to  the  Holy  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  of  Mexico. 

Ha^'ing  exposed  the  first  blunder  in  this  pretended  grant 
namely:  that  it  did  not  pass  before  the  "Consejo  de  Indias"  we 
come  to  the  second  that  it  was  submitted  to  the  Inquisition. 

We  may  read  all  the  history  of  Spanish  America  and  all 
the  laws  contained  in  the  recompilations  of  Spain  and  of  the 
Indies,  and  we   have   vet    to    see  where    this    tribunal,    whose 


104  SDKVEYOK  CjtENEKAL'S    KEPOKT. 

institution  was  established  to  burn  heretics  and  Turks,  was 
empowered  to  measure,  locale  or  deliver  possession  of  land. 
It  is  incumbent  on  the  claimant  to  prove  the  law  under  which 
the  proceedings  in  his  pretended  grant  were  executed;  this  he 
has  totally  failed  to  do.  See  Hall's  Mx  law.  Chap.  II.  In 
this  chapter  is  a  compilation  of  the  land  laws  of  Spain,  which 
was  entirely  under  the  control  of  the  civil  branch  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  nowhere  do  we  see  that  the  inquisition  or  any 
priest  had  the  granting;  or  surveying  of  lands  except  in  the 
following  cases.  The  only  instance  where  we  find  the  priests 
acting  as  grantors  of  lands  is  in  the  early  missionary  period  ot 
Lower  California  and  Pimeria  of  Sonora,  but  that  was  when 
the  Jesuits  were  empowered  to  manage  both  the  civil  and  the 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  then,  their  power  was  limited  to 
granting  lots  and  small  farms  near  the  Pueblos  and  Missions. 
But  this  priestly  rule  did  not  last  long,  and  we  see  that  in 
1693  a  Governor  was  appointed  in  Sonora.  See  Bancroft's, 
XV  page  258;  and  that  in  1734  Sonora  and  Sinaloa  were  raised 
to  the  dignity  of  an  independent  province,  subject  only  to  the 
viceroy  of  Mexico  as  subordinates  in  military  matters,  yet 
even  in  military  matters  the  viceroy  did  not  have  an  indepen- 
dent power  in  Sonora,  and  what  power  he  did  exercise  was  not 
independent  of  the  Governor  of  Sonora,  but  through  him- 
See  Bancroft's  XV,  page  520.  From  1734  down  to  and  since 
1776,  the  period  covered  by  the  proceedings  here  mentioned, 
this  state  of  things  continued.  In  certain  civil  proceedings 
and  for  all  matters  concerning  lands,  Sonora  belonged  to  the 
dominion  of  the  Audiencia  of  Guadalajara  that  is  Nueva 
Galieia. 

We  find  in  Hall's  Mx  laws,  page  5,  Sec.  12,  that  under 
the  land  laws  of  1754,  which  cover  the  period  here  in  question, 
Sonora  was  in  land  matters  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Audiencia  of  Guadalajara,  which  had  the  disposal  of  lands 
therein.  The  law  itself  of  1754,  is  fully  set  forth  in  Hall's 
Mx.  laws,  page  26. 

This  pretended   Peralta  grant  was  petitioned  for  in  1748* 


SUKVEYUK  UENKKAL'S  KEPOKT.  105 

directly  to  the  King  and  in  this  respect  only  might  the  pro- 
ceeding have  been  regular,  because  at  that  period  the  law  so 
provided.     See  Hall's  Mexican  law,  page  14,  Sec.  27. 

But  it  is  not  pretended  that  anything  was  done  with  the 
Peralta  claim  till  the  report  of  the  mquisitors  in  October  lOthi 
1757,  just  four  years  after  the  new  law  had  come  into  effect, 
and  after  the  power  to  grant  lands  was  delegated  by  the  King 
to  the  Audienciasof  Mexico  for  the  Southern,  provinces,  and  to 
that  of  Guadalajara  for  the  northern  provinces  of  North 
America.     See  Hall's  Mexican  laws,  page  17.  et  seq. 

Anyway,  if  Peralta  claims  his  grant  was  under  the  law 
of  1735,  that  law  only  g:oes  as  far  as  to  reserve  to  the  King, 
the  right  to  receive  petitions  for  lands  and  confirm  them  after 
they  have  been  lo<^ated,  surveyed  and  determined,  leaving  all 
those  formalities  to  be  settled  under  the  laws  in  book  4,  title 
12.  In  these  laws,  it  is  expressly  said  that  all  the  intermedi- 
ate steps  between  the  petition  and  the  approval  of  the  Kings, 
shall  be  made  by  the  viceroy.  Governor  or  other  civil  officer 
having  jurisdiction  of  the  locality. 

But  the  law  of  1754    does  not  leave  any  room  to  doubt 
that  all  proceedings  or  incomplete    grants  after  that  date  had 
to  be  governed    by  the  new  law,  and  that  the  grants  were   re 
quired  to  be  made  bv  the  Audiencias.      Hall's  Mx.  law,  page 
31-32,  Sec.  66. 

This  law  prescribes  who  shall  make  the  surveys  and  who 
shall  make  the  grant;  what  proceedings  must  be  followed,  all 
in  a  minute  and  detailed  manner. 

According  to  the  laws  both  of  1735  and  1754  the  pro- 
ceedings in  this  case  should  be  as  follows,  viz  :  The  cedula 
of  the  King  should  : 

1st.  Have  been  sanctioned  by  the  ''Concijo  de  Indias." 

2nd.  It  should  have  been  remitted  to  th  viceroy,  who 
should  have  endorsed  it,  and  then, 

3rd.  Remitted  it  to  the  Captain  General,  or  Governor  of 
8onora  or  Sinaloa,  the  land  being  located    in   his   jurisdiction. 

4th.  The  Governor,  of  Sonora  should  have  endorsed  it, 
and  added  an  order   to  the   head    of  the    civil    and    military 


106  SUKVKYOK  GENKKAl^'S  KEFOKT. 

authority  at  Tiibac,  which  was  the  northernmost  military  post 
and  presidio  under  direct  civil  Hpanish  rule  at  the  time.  (See 
Bancroft  XV,  page  559.)  To  go  to  the  place  chosen  by  the 
claimant,  and  start  the  proceedings  by  making  publication, 
calling  all  neighbors  and  former  grantees  to  appear  and  pre- 
sent objections  if  they  had  any. 

5th.  The  report  in  full  of  all  the  proceedings,  testimony, 
survey  certified  to,  returned  to  the  Governor. 

6th.  The  Governor  endorsing  the  proceedings,  sends  them 
to  the  Audiencia  of  Guadalajara  who  issues  its  grant. 

7th.  These  Procotols,  which  by  this  time  in  the  Peralto 
claim  should  have  amounted  to  a  small  vohime  of  fifty  closely 
written  pages  is  kepi  by  the  Audiencia,  and  a  copy  of  it,  with 
the  original  deed  of  grant  attached  on  the  last  page  of  the  e.x. 
pedients  should  have  been  given  to  Peralta.  (Hall's  Mx. 
law,  page  71,  Sec.  172-1773.) 

As  this  pretended  Peralta  grant  if  ever  made,  wns  issued 
under  two  laws;  initiated  under  law  of  1735  and  finished  under 
law  of  1754  it  should  be  found  in  the  recordts. 

1st.    Of  Madrid. 

2nd.  Of  a  Viceroy  of  Mexico. 

3rd.  In  records  of  the  Audencia  of  Guadnlajara.  (See 
Hall's  Mx.  law,  page  73,  Sec.  174-177-1778. 

When  in  fact  not  one  of  those  requisite  steps  appear  to 
have  been  takeij  and  no  evidence  is  found  in  either  of  the 
places  where  it  would  be  if  the  grant  had  actually  been  made. 

Many  grants  made  from  1648  to  1800  now  found  in  the 
archives  of  Sonorahave  been  examined  and  in  none  of  them 
are  found  the  bad  Spanish  used  in  this  pretended  cedula. 

The  golden  age  of  theCastilian  language  was  the  sixteenth 
century  when  Calderon,  De  la  Vega,  Cervantes  and  many- 
others  wrote,  and  their  works  then  crystallized  the  language, 
and  made  it  what  it  is  now;  and  those  who  pretend  to  speak 
Castilian  well  take  the  pattern  from  those  authors. 

This  pi'^tended  cedula  has  more  faults  in  it  than  it  has 
words.  One  word  often  has  two  and  three  niistakes  of  ortho-" 
graph y  and  grammar. 

The  whole  thing  \<ii  bold  attempt  of  some  person  ignorant 


SOKVEYOK  UENEKAL'S  KEPOKT.  107 

of  Spanish  history,  law  cr  language.  Even  the  stereotyped 
form  employed  in  the  cedula  of  the  Kings  of  Spain  is  want- 
ing. In  this  pretended  cedula  of  Ferdinand  VI  or  that  of 
Carlos  III,  the  King  commences  his  decree  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  any  other  mortal;  in  the  one  it  commences : 

"El  Rey  virrey  Governador  y  Capitan  General,."  and  the 
other,  that  of  Carlos  III  is  characterized  by  the  same  sim- 
plicity; whereas  the  forms  made  use  of  by  Carlos  III  in  all 
hiscedulas  occupied  many  lines  in  a  preliminary  recital  of  his 
titles.  The  following  is  the  form  usually  employed  by  Carlos 
III  as  appears  by  an  examination  of  his  published  cedulas 
known  to  be  genuine,  viz: 

"Don  Carlos,  Por  la  Gracia  De  Dios  Rey  de  Castilla,  de- 
Leon,  de  Aragon,  de  las  dos  Sicilias,  de  Jerusalen,  de  Navarra, 
de  Granada,  de  Toledo,  de  Valencia,  de  Galicia,  de  Mallorca, 
de  Sevilla,  de  Cerdeiia,  de  Cordova,  deCorcega,  de  Murcia,  de 
Jaen,  de  los  Algarves,  de  Algecira,  de  Gibraltar,  de  las  Islas 
de  Canaria,  de  las  Indias  Orientales,  y  Occidentales  Islas  y 
Tierra-Firn)edel  Mar  Oceauo,  Archiduquede  Austria,  Duque 
de  Borgoua,  de  Bravante,  y  Milan,  Conde  de  Abspurg,  Flandes, 
Tirol,  Barcelona,  Senor  de  Vizcaya,  y  de  Molina,  etc.,  etc." 
Even  these  common  and  usual  recitals  in  the  cedulas  of  the  kings 
of  Spain  are  utterly  ignored;  and  the  pretended  cedula  recom- 
mending the  grant  to  l)e  made  by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain  fol- 
low the  simple  form  now  in  use  by  the  presidents  of  the  several 
republics  in  the  world;  which  corroborates  the  correctness  of  the 
view  herein  expressed  that  these  documents  were  prepared  by 
persons  who  never  lived  under  a  monarchical  government,  but 
whose  education,  inspiratijn  and  surroundings  were  those  found 
only  among  the  people  who  reside  on  the  Pacific  Coast  of  tlie 
U niied  States  of  America. 

I  therefore  respectfully  subijiit  that  this  claim  is    entirely 

unsupported  by  any  evidence;    and  that  it  should  be  given  no 

recognition  by  tlie  government  of  tlie  United  States  under  the 

treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Mexico  and  the  United  States. 

Respectfullv  submitted, 

CLARK  CHURCHILL, 
Counsel  for  settlers  upon  lands  covered  by  the  })retended  grant. 


